World Heritage 24COM

Distribution limited

WHC-2000/CONF.204/21 Paris, 16 February 2001

Original : English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD

CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-fourth session

Cairns, Australia 27 November – 2 December 2000

REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OPENING SESSION 1 II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE 2 III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON,

RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS 2 IV. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE

ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 3

V. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE SESSIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU 4

VI. WORK OF THE WORLD HERITAGE REFORM GROUPS 5

VII. PERIODIC REPORTING 12 VIII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES

INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 15 IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONAL ACTIONS

FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY ACTION PLAN 31

X. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND WORLD HERITAGE LIST 33

XI. INFORMATION STRATEGY 51 XII. DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND

EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 52 XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE

FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 2002 53

XIV. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 58 XV. TRAINING STRATEGY 61 XVI. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF

THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 64

XVII. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE 64

XVIII.OTHER BUSINESS 64 XIX. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 64

Annexes

I. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

67

II SPEECH OF THE OUTGOING CHAIRPERSON MR. ABDELAZIZ TOURI

89

III SPEECH OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR CULTURE OF UNESCO, MR. MOUNIR BOUCHENAKI

91

IV. FIRST PACIFIC WORLD HERITAGE YOUTH FORUM ACTION PLAN

95

V. RECOMMENDATIONS TRANSMITTED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE BY THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FORUM

97

VI. SPEECH OF THE INCOMING CHAIRPERSON OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, MR. PETER KING

101

VII. SPEECH OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE, UNESCO, MR. FRANCESCO BANDARIN

103

VIII. REVISED CALENDAR AND CYCLE FOR WORLD HERITAGE STATUTORY MEETINGS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS OF 2002

105

IX. LETTER FROM THE ITALIAN GOVERN-MENT CONCERNING REPRESENTATIVITY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

107

X STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

109

XI. REPORT FROM PROFESSOR BRIAN WILKINSON, LEADER OF THE ICSU INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PANEL (ISP) ON KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

135

XII. STATEMENT BY IUCN ON KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

139

XIII. STATEMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PANEL OF ICSU BY THE SUPERVISING SCIENTIST OF AUSTRALIA CONCERNING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

141

XIV. LETTER FROM YVONNE MARGARULA, MIRRAR SENIOR TRADITIONAL OWNER CONCERNING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

143

XV. RECOMMENDATION OF THE TECHNICAL

WORKSHOP ON WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING

145

XVI. DECLARATION OF THE MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURAL AFFAIRS IN THE ARAB WORLD

149

XVII. STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF PALESTINE

151

XVIII.

STATEMENT BY THE OBSERVER OF ISRAEL

153

XIX. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU IN PARIS

155

1

I. OPENING SESSION I.1 The twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairns, Australia, from 27 November to 2 December 2000. It was attended by all twenty-one members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia, Belgium, Benin, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Thailand, and Zimbabwe. I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented as observers: Angola, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Fiji, France, Germany, Holy See, India, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Yemen. I.3 The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to UNESCO, non State Party to the World Heritage Convention, also participated at this session as an observer. I.4 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the Committee, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The meeting was also attended by representatives and observers of the following international governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Organization of World Heritage Cities, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, Bama Wabu, The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd (Australia), CRC Tourism/Southern Cross University, Environment Center NT Inc. (Australia), Environmental Defender’s Office of Northern Queensland, Inc., Fraser Island Defenders Organization, Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Japan, Gimy Walubara Yidinji, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, Waanyi Traditional Elders Corporation, International Centre for Cultural Landscapes, International Council for Science [ICSU Independent Science Panel - Kakadu], International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), North Queensland Conservation Council, Organisation for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA), Simon Wiesenthal Centre Europe, United Nations Foundation, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Victoria University of Wellington (New

Zealand), The Wilderness Society (Australia), and the World Archaeological Congress, WWF Australia and Queensland Conservation Council. (The full List of Participants is attached as Annex I to this report). I.5 The twenty–fourth session of the World Heritage Committee was opened by Mr Abdelaziz Touri, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, who presented Ms Jeanette Singleton, Traditional Owner. Ms Singleton, representative of a coastal indigenous group, informed the Committee that her people lived on the land from time immemorial coming into contact with the first Europeans in 1876. She expressed her appreciation that the Committee was held in Cairns near the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage site. 1.6 The outgoing Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Abdelaziz Touri thanked Ms. Singleton for her presentation. He expressed his appreciation for the support of the Committee during a demanding year and highlighted progress made and challenges faced. (His speech is attached as Annex II to this report). 1.7 Mr. Roger Beale AM, Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage, on behalf of the host country, welcomed all participants to Australia, noting that the meeting was being held on Aboriginal lands of North Queensland. He commended Mr Touri for his efficient Chairmanship of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau and the way he had steered the sessions of the Bureau and Committee. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Bouchenaki and the staff of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for their support. With respect to the preparations for the meeting, he drew attention to the enormous task involved and urged the Secretariat and the Committee to use new technological tools to make these meetings more efficient. Mr Beale also acknowledged the great contribution made by the Queensland Government; and the staff of the two local World Heritage sites, namely, the Wet Tropics of Queensland, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority all which made the meeting possible. 1.8 Mr Rod Welford, Minister for Environment and Heritage, Queensland Government, paid respect to the Traditional Owners of Queensland on whose land the meeting was being held. He welcomed the Chairperson, the Committee members and all participants and informed the Committee that Queensland has five of the thirteen World Heritage areas of Australia and that these unique sites are managed with responsibility. On behalf of the Queensland Government, he warmly welcomed all the Committee participants. 1.9 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture, expressed his sincere gratitude to the Australian authorities for hosting the meeting and for their generosity and hospitality. Noting the special significance of this meeting in the Pacific region, where only six of the

2

16 Member States of UNESCO were States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, he made special mention of the two Pacific Island States Parties, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, who were present. He informed the Committee about reform measures undertaken in UNESCO, which he linked to the complementary reform process being undertaken by the Committee and the Secretariat. He said that he was fully confident that "Cairns 2000" would become as equally well known as the recently concluded "Sydney 2000" and, like it, a worldwide success. (His speech is included as Annex III). 1.10 Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of UNESCO World Heritage Centre, then took the floor to acknowledge the warm welcome given by Australia. He praised the leadership of Mr Touri who had been at the helm during a challenging year. The Director expressed appreciation for the way he had been received into the Secretariat and the support from the Committee that enabled him to settle in well into his new position. I.11 A delegation of students presented the results of the First Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum, held in Cairns, Australia, 23 – 28 November 2000. The Forum was organised by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO and Environment Australia within the framework of the UNESCO Special Project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion". The students presented an action plan for 2001 to better ensure young people's participation in World Heritage identification, preservation and promotion in the Pacific (see Annex IV). They emphasised the need for 1) integrating World Heritage into classroom teaching, 2) organisation of on-site conservation activities for young people and 3) proposed to set up a network of "Pacific Patrimonitos' Centres" at schools to provide students with a platform for concrete conservation work and research in the fields of local and World Heritage. These centres would furthermore ensure networking and exchange of know-how between young people throughout the region. A teacher from New Zealand presented the plan to develop a Pacific version of the World Heritage Educational Resource Kit and an Associated Schools Coordinator from Fiji explained how World Heritage is being integrated into the curriculum at the national level. The Director of the UNESCO Apia Office underlined the complementarity of education and World Heritage conservation in the Pacific region. I.12 On 28 November 2000 representatives from Australia, Canada, the Solomon Islands and New Zealand attending an Indigenous Peoples Forum on World Heritage held in Cairns (24 November) made a presentation to the World Heritage Committee. In their presentation they made a plea for the protection of indigenous knowledge systems, values and traditions in World Heritage areas, asserting that these sites were "ancestral lands" that had to be treated with respect. In the management of these sites, consideration should be taken to involve and negotiate with Indigenous Peoples who are the Traditional Owners.

They urged the Committee to adopt four specific recommendations that they submitted, particularly for the establishment of a World Heritage Indigenous Council of Experts. Representatives of Traditional Owners from Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the Willandra Lakes Region, the Tasmanian Wilderness, the Wet Tropics Area and New Zealand, returned to the Committee to confirm the authenticity of the presentation. (See Annex V). I.13 Following a proposal by Australia and supported by members of the Committee, the Committee asked the Secretariat to follow-up on the recommendations of both the Youth Forum and the Indigenous People's Forum. A review of the feasibility of these proposals would be presented by the Secretariat to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND

TIMETABLE II.1 The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda and Timetable (WHC-99/CONF.204/1 Rev.10) without any modifications.

III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON,

RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS III.1 Proposed by the Delegate of Hungary, and endorsed by Canada, Thailand and Benin, Mr Peter King (Australia) was elected as Chairperson by acclamation. The following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation: Canada, Ecuador, Finland, Morocco and Thailand. Mr. Dawson Munjeri (Zimbabwe) was elected as Rapporteur.

III.2 The Committee warmly thanked the out-going Chairperson, Mr Abdelaziz Touri for the excellent leadership he provided the Committee during the past year which had resulted in closer working relations between the Committee and the Secretariat. III.3 The newly-elected Chairperson, Mr Peter King, expressed his appreciation for the remarkable manner in which Mr Touri carried out his functions as Chairperson of the Committee. He pointed out that this had resulted in several important initiatives taken during his tenure of office and thanked all Committee members for electing him into office. Mr King further highlighted regional initiatives and concluded by stating his commitment to a new partnership in the World Heritage movement and to finding new ways of encouraging practical support for heritage conservation. (His speech is attached as Annex VI).

3

IV. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

IV.1 Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee, presented the report on activities undertaken since the last session of the World Heritage Committee in 1999. He referred to Information Document WHC-2000/CONF/204/INF.4. Using a Powerpoint presentation, he highlighted the important points of the past year’s activities. IV.2 The Director stressed the wide reform agenda within UNESCO and commitments made by Mr Koichiro Matsuura, the new UNESCO Director-General, to reform the Secretariat in order to meet these challenges. Among positive changes envisaged were the announced reform of the Committee’s working methods, to energize the Centre and which will increase its efficiency to meet the growing demands of the Committee and the States Parties. IV.3 The Director briefly mentioned the four World Heritage statutory meetings held in 2000 and the work accomplished by the four reform groups, namely the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List, the Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee and the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. He also presented some preliminary proposals for improvement in Documentation. These were designed to facilitate and speed-up decision-making by the Bureau and the Committee. IV.4 Concerning co-operation with the advisory bodies, the Director referred to two meetings held in February and September 2000 which enabled close co-ordination between inputs from the advisory bodies and the Centre in the preparation of working documents for the Bureau and the Committee sessions. Other meetings and workshops were organized in co-operation with the advisory bodies, for example, the expert meeting on World Heritage and Mining (September 2000) in Gland, Switzerland, jointly organized by the Centre and IUCN, with the active participation of ICOMOS and the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME). IV.5 The Director highlighted the continuing co-operation of the Centre with other UNESCO Sectors and Units in the implementation of a variety of projects related to the preservation of World Heritage sites, as well as the increasing number of activities undertaken in co-operation with the regional offices. IV.6 In the framework of co-operation with other Conventions, the Director mentioned fruitful exchanges

that included the Biodiversity Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species and the Ramsar Convention. He also mentioned the adoption of the European Landscape Convention by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers in July 2000. IV.7 Concerning the co-operation with other organizations, special mention was made of the partnership with the United Nations Foundation for strengthening the protection of World Heritage natural sites, in the framework of which some 8.5 million dollars had been provided as outright grants for projects of benefit to World Natural Heritage of global biodiversity significance. The Director further mentioned ongoing projects and co-operation with, among others, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), the World Tourism Organization, The World Bank, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the French Agency for Development, the Caisse des dépôts et consignation de France, the European Union Asia Urbs Programme and the Nordic World Heritage Office. In all this, the Director stressed the increasing importance of strategic partnerships that would reinforce the Centre's efforts and help improve the problems arising from insufficient resources. IV.8 The Director of the Centre indicated that Namibia, Kiribati and Comoros had ratified the Convention in 2000, bringing the number of States Parties to the Convention to 161. He stressed the record number of 72 nominations to be discussed at this session of the World Heritage Committee and informed the Committee that 115 among the 161 States Parties, had submitted Tentative Lists that comply with the format specified in the Operational Guidelines. IV.9 Within the activities related to the Global Strategy to ensure a representative and balanced World Heritage List, reference was made to a certain number of initiatives undertaken to address lacuna related to under-represented regions and types of heritage. Among the meetings and workshops held in 2000, mention was made of the following: ‘Assessing Natural Heritage of Coastal and Marine Areas of Africa’, held in Maputo, Mozambique; ‘Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context’, held at Great Zimbabwe; the AFRICA 2009 regional 3-month training course, ‘Conservation and Management of Immovable Cultural Heritage’, Porto Novo, Benin; the ‘Regional Capacity-Building Workshop for the Promotion of Awareness in Natural Heritage Conservation’, Muscat, Oman. Furthermore, a Global Strategy Expert Meeting on Central Asian Cultural Heritage was hosted by the Government of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat; a seminar on Natural Heritage in the Caribbean was held in Paramaribo, Suriname; a Workshop on the Management of Sites in the Guyana Shield was held in Georgetown, Guyana; a Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps took place in Hallstatt, Austria; a conference was organized on World Heritage Fossil Sites in Australia, and

4

cultural landscapes meetings were held in Italy, Kenya and Costa Rica. IV.10 In the framework of Periodic Reporting, the Director indicated that the final synthesis report for periodic reporting for the Arab Region will be presented to this session of the Committee and that the Periodic reporting exercise for Africa, taking place in 2001, is in preparation. IV.11 Several other sites had been in the focus of public attention in 2000, such as the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru, and the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino, Mexico. The Director briefly mentioned reports on the state of conservation of sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the last session of the World Heritage Committee, and particularly the recent developments at the Group of Monuments at Hampi, India. IV.12 The increase in the number of international assistance requests approved in 2000 (105) reflects the growing number of sites and threats to them. In view of the limited budget within the World Heritage Fund, the World Heritage Centre continued to give priority to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or Low-Income Countries (LICs), especially those with sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, encouraging them to utilize the funds in catalytic ways. Moreover, non LDC/LIC States Parties were encouraged to actively seek funds for large-scale projects from other sources. IV.13 The Director referred to the activities of the Centre’s Documentation, Information and Education Unit, emphasizing the increased range of activities undertaken in 2000. He particularly stressed the heavy workload concerning the Centre’s statutory archival and documentary function, but pointed out that the Unit had been reinforced with two staff members detached from the UNESCO Culture Sector. He also indicated that the World Heritage Review had increased its frequency by becoming a bi-monthly edition, and that new partnership initiatives had been undertaken, notably through activities with the tourism industry. Special mention was made of the Special Project Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion, which is proving to be one of the most successful flagship projects launched by UNESCO for young people. In 2000, more than 130 Member States actively participated in the experimentation and adaptation of the Educational Resource Kit for Teachers “World Heritage in young hands”. IV.14 Finally, the Director brought to the attention of the Committee, the inadequacies of resources, but was optimistic that this would not delay the work of the Committee. IV.15 At the end of the presentation of the Secretariat’s report, the Director shared with the Committee his initial impressions as newly appointed Director of the World

Heritage Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Committee. (His speech is attached as Annex VII to this report). IV.16 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee thanked the Director for his excellent presentation that enabled him to gain insight into the wide and diverse array of the Centre’s activities. V. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE

SESSIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU

V.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (26 June – 1 July 2000), Ms Anne Lammila, had finished her term as Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO and had returned to Finland to the take up new duties. Therefore, at the invitation of the Chairperson, the Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, had been adopted by the Bureau. V.2 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session, decided to hold a Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, Hungary from 2-4 October 2000. This Special Session was held in order to further discuss the:

�� Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

�� Representivity of the World Heritage List �� Equitable Representation of the World Heritage

Committee �� Revision to the Operational Guidelines.

As the position of the Rapporteur was vacant, in accordance with Rule 15.2 of the Rules of Procedures of the World Heritage Committee, the Committee was informed that Australia had been called upon to provide a replacement Rapporteur for the Special Session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000). Mr Kevin Keeffe served as Rapporteur at these two sessions. V.3 The Rapporteur drew the attention of the Committee to the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/3 that includes recommendations on:

(a) Statutory meetings, strategic planning, the proposal for a sub-committee system and equitable representation in the World Heritage Committee

(b) Representivity of the World Heritage List (c) Information and documentation management (d) Other matters.

5

The Committee was informed that the Budapest Bureau session was very fruitful and should lead to the finalisation of some of the important reform measures which were now before the Committee, including those related to World Heritage statutory meetings. V.4 In relation to the discussions held concerning the Revision to the Operational Guidelines, Mr Keeffe presented the following text, to replace paragraph III.22 of the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/3.

“The Bureau recommended that once the new overall framework for revised Operational Guidelines (WHC-2000/CONF.202/9) had been approved by the Committee, details of new text could be finalized. The Bureau agreed that the production of revised Operational Guidelines, incorporating proposed changes be considered by the Committee as a high priority. The Bureau agreed that the revision of the Operational Guidelines would require teamwork on the part of the Secretariat, advisory bodies and representatives of States Parties.”

An initial draft text had been prepared by Australia and is presented as an Information document, but not intended for discussion by the Committee. With this correction, the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was adopted by the Committee. V.5 The Rapporteur thereafter presented the Report of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Cairns, 23-24 November 2000) presented in Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/4. He recalled that this was a working document for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee and drew the attention of the Committee to the sections concerning: III. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the

World Heritage List • = World Heritage and Mining • = State of conservation of natural properties • = State of conservation of mixed properties • = State of conservation of cultural properties

IV. Examination of nominations of cultural and natural

properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

VI. Feasibility study on the proposed system of sub-

committees. The Rapporteur informed the Committee that any additional comments on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List could be

made during discussions under Agenda Item 8.2, and on the Feasibility Study during Agenda Item 6 respectively. VI. WORK OF THE WORLD HERITAGE

REFORM GROUPS VI.1 The Committee noted the reports of the following four reform groups and sincerely thanked the States Parties who had participated in their work. Task Force on the implementation of the Convention Chair: C. Cameron (Canada) Rapporteur: K. Keeffe (Australia) WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 7 Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List Chair: H.E. Ambassador Mr Olabiyi B.J. Yai (Benin) Rapporteur: H.E. Mr M. Peek (Australia) WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 8 Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee Chair: H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France) Rapporteur: D. Masek (Czech Republic) WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.9 International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines, Canterbury, United Kingdom (10-14 April 2000) Chair: C. Young (United Kingdom) Rapporteur: K. Kovacs (United States of America) WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.10 VI.2 In view of the large number of detailed recommendations prepared by the four groups listed above, and given that there was limited time for discussion, the Committee focused its discussions on the reform process by examining four specific issues as follows: 1. PROPOSED REFORM OF THE CALENDAR AND CYCLE OF WORLD HERITAGE STATUTORY MEETINGS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SUB-COMMITTEES The Committee recalled that the Task Force for the Implementation of the Convention, chaired by Ms Christina Cameron (Canada), had proposed that sub-committees be established to facilitate the work of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre. The Committee also recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (June 2000) had requested that there be further examination of the possibility of a sub-committee system and that the Special Session of the Bureau (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) had discussed the proposal further with reference to a paper prepared by the United Kingdom.

6

As requested by the Special Session of the Bureau, a paper on the feasibility and implications of a sub-committee system was prepared and examined by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.203/6). The four objectives for proposing changes to the existing Bureau and Committee system were to:

Objective 1 Facilitate the work of the World

Heritage Centre Objective 2 Facilitate the work of the World

Heritage Committee and allow it to devote more time to general policy discussions for the implementation of the Convention

Objective 3 Improve the prior examination of various issues submitted to the Committee, and

Objective 4 Increase representation of States Parties in the work of the Committee

The Committee decided to:

�� Revise the calendar and cycle of World Heritage meetings from June/November to April/June (see Annex VIII)

�� Abolish the extraordinary sessions of the Bureau and Committee

�� Implement changes to the calendar and cycle of the Bureau and the Committee in 2002 (Note: Hungary, who hopes to be host country to the Committee in 2002, expressed their agreement to this date for the introduction of a new calendar and cycle)

�� Introduce an Item A and B decision-making system (Item A: items which are the subject of consensus for adoption and, Item B: items requiring discussion by the Committee)

�� Enforce Rule 22.2 of Committee’s Rules of Procedure to limit the time allowed to each speaker (especially if they are an observer)

�� Defer the examination of nominations received in 2001 to the year 2003. This deferral would imply only a limited pause (7 months) in the nomination process, and allow the necessary transitional adjustments

�� Introduce a biennial budget for the World Heritage Fund to harmonize with the UNESCO budget cycle

�� Review any changes to the calendar, cycle and meetings of the Bureau (or sub-committees) and the Committee after they have been in operation for 4 years

The revised deadline for nominations would be 1 February. Evaluations would be due from IUCN and/or ICOMOS 6 weeks prior to the April Bureau. Referrals of nominations would be re-examined by the Bureau in the year following initial examination before proceeding to the Committee for decision. The deadline for receipt of international assistance requests and state of conservation reports would also be on 1 February.

During the transition period the following timetable would apply:

Nominations received by To be examined by the Bureau

To be examined by the Committee

1 July 2000 June/July 2001 December 2001 31 December 20001 April 2002 June 2002 1 February 2002 April 2003 June 2003 1 February 2003 April 2004 June 2004

1 Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage Centre prior to 31 December 2000 will be considered together with nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.

7

The Committee decided to defer a decision on the introduction of a sub-committee system or the extension of the Bureau session from six to eight days, until the effectiveness of the other reforms (changed statutory meeting calendar and cycle, limitation in number of nominations to be examined each year and reforms to meeting documentation) could be assessed at a later date. It was thus agreed that reform should proceed gradually. Greater efforts were to be given to structuring the work of the Bureau to focus its work. The ordering of the agenda by topics was considered useful as was the use of informal ad hoc working groups to expedite the work of the Bureau and Committee. The Delegate of Hungary presented a document distributed to the Committee entitled “A Hungarian World Heritage Vision”. The document refers to the need to address the balance of representation of the World Heritage List in favour of under-represented or non-represented countries. It also calls for a more prominent role for tentative lists. The Delegate of Hungary suggested that with a pause in the examination of nominations in 2002, the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002 could concentrate on the preparation of a Strategic Plan and other issues important for the future implementation of the Convention. Documentation The Committee noted that the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention had recommended a number of reforms to the documents prepared for World Heritage statutory meetings. Following a presentation by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, the Committee agreed that the objectives of reforming meeting documentation would be to:

�� facilitate decision-making and increase efficiency �� streamline document preparation �� provide transparency and equity of access to

documentation �� reduce costs.

The Committee decided that reform of the system of documentation, as proposed by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, would include:

�� maintaining Reports of the Rapporteurs �� reducing the number of working documents by

compiling one decision-making guide to be distributed 2 weeks prior to the meeting

�� including additional working documents only in exceptional cases - e.g. Strategic Planning documents, or changes to Reference Texts (Operational Guidelines, Rules of Procedure etc.)

�� all other documents as Information Documents. To enhance communication between the World Heritage Centre and the Committee, the Committee also decided, as proposed by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, that the Centre would,

��prepare a regular report referencing documents currently available

��organize two information meetings per year for Committee members at UNESCO Headquarters (non-Committee members to attend as observers)

��continue to prepare a Secretariat Report to the Bureau and Committee but improve its structure and content.

The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to implement as many of these reforms as are feasible before the twenty-fifth session of the Committee. 2. EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE The Committee recalled that in October 1999 the twelfth General Assembly,

�� adopted by consensus a Resolution underlining the importance of an equitable representation of the World Heritage Committee and the need to increase the number of its members

�� requested the World Heritage Committee to submit proposals on this matter to the thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties and to inscribe an item on the agenda of the thirty-first General Conference in 2001.

The Committee noted that in 2000, a Working Group on Equitable Representation within the World Heritage Committee was established under the Chairmanship of H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France). The report of the Working Group was discussed at the June and October 2000 sessions of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.9). The Committee noted the proposals on the equitable representation of the Committee developed following the Special Session of the Bureau session (WHC-2000/CONF.204/6) and decided to recommend the following Draft Resolution for adoption by the 13th General Assembly: The General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

Recalling Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention which stipulates that “Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world"; Recalling Article 9 of the Convention which stipulates that “The term of office of States members of the World Heritage Committee shall extend from the end of the ordinary session of the General Conference during which they are elected until the end of its third subsequent ordinary session”;

8

Recalling the Resolution of the 7th General Assembly of States Parties (1989); Considering the representivity of the World Heritage List could be enhanced through the increased participation in the work of the Committee of States Parties whose heritage is currently unrepresented in the List; Considering that the strong interest of States Parties in participating in the work of the World Heritage Committee could be addressed by a more frequent rotation of Committee members; Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, to voluntarily reduce their term of office from six to four years; Encourages States Parties that are not members of the Committee to make use of their right to participate in meetings of the World Heritage Committee as observers; Discourages States Parties from seeking consecutive terms of office in the World Heritage Committee; Decides that before each election of Committee members, the President of the General Assembly of States Parties will inform States Parties of the situation of the representation of regions and cultures in the World Heritage Committee and World Heritage List; Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as follows: New Rule to be inserted after Rule 13.1 A certain number of seats may be reserved for State Parties who do not have sites on the World Heritage List, upon decision of the World Heritage Committee at the session that precedes the General Assembly. Such a ballot for reserved seats would precede the open ballot for the remaining seats to be filled. Unsuccessful candidates in the reserved ballot would be eligible to stand in the open ballot. Amendment to existing Rule 13.8 (new text in bold) 13.8 Those States obtaining in the first ballot the required majority shall be elected, unless the number of States obtaining that majority is greater than the number of seats to be filled. In that case, the States obtaining the greatest number of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled, shall be declared elected. If the number of States obtaining the majority required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there shall be a second ballot, followed by a third and, if necessary a fourth, to fill the remaining seats. If the number of States obtaining the majority

required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there shall be a second ballot. If the number of States obtaining the majority required is still less than the number of seats to be filled there shall be a third and, if necessary a fourth ballot, to fill the remaining seats. For the third and fourth ballots, the voting shall be restricted to the States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot, up to a number twice that of the seats remaining to be filled.

Decides that this resolution should be implemented immediately.

The Committee also recommended that the General Assembly organize the agenda of its thirteenth session so that the measures foreseen by these amendments may enter into force at that same session. In order to implement the new rule to be inserted following Rule 13.1, the Committee decided that one seat be reserved for a State Party not having a site inscribed on the World Heritage List at the date of the thirteenth session of the General Assembly. The Committee requested the Secretariat to inform all States Parties of the implementation of the new electoral procedures, particularly those States Parties which may fulfill the conditions to be candidates for the reserved seat. The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare with the involvement of interested States Parties and the advisory bodies, a proposal for the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee for further amendment to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedures of the General Assembly relating to the election of members of the World Heritage Committee in order to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world. This proposal is to be based on a thorough analysis of the consequences of the proposed changes and the adjustments that would be required to the election procedures. The Committee also decided to revise the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee as follows:

New Rule 4.3 “In determining the place of the next session, the Committee shall give due regard to the need to ensure an equitable rotation among the different regions and cultures of the world.”

New Rule 20.4 “In appointing consultative bodies, due regard shall be given to the need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world.”

9

New Rule 21.3 “In appointing subsidiary bodies, due regard shall be given to the need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world.”

3. REPRESENTIVITY OF THE WORLD

HERITAGE LIST The Committee examined and discussed the recommendations of the Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List chaired by Ambassador Yai (Benin), which had been transmitted by the Special Session of the Bureau with some changes. The Committee recognized that the issue of representivity of the World Heritage List was the most difficult of the reform issues under consideration by the Committee. The Committee noted that more effective use of tentative lists and greater regulation of the ever-increasing number of nominations was required. It was agreed that other measures, such as assistance for capacity-building would be vital for ensuring the representation of sites from all regions on the World Heritage List. The Committee therefore agreed on a decision presented in 5 sections:

1. Respecting the Convention 2. Tentative Lists 3. Nominations 4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999 5. Capacity Building for under-represented Regions

With reference to Section 3, the Delegate of Hungary asked that his request for a change in the deadline for submission of nominations to be examined in 2002, from December 2000 as agreed by the Committee, to April 2001, be noted in the Report. The Committee agreed to note this request by the Delegate of Hungary but stated that in the interest of a smooth transition, the majority position of the Committee will be maintained. With the exception of Hungary, the text of the decision was adopted by all members of the Committee. A letter from the Italian Government is included as Annex IX of this report. The Committee agreed to transmit its decision to the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties in 2001. 1. Respecting the Convention The Committee reaffirmed the Convention for the Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage as an instrument of consensus, cooperation and accord between States Parties and takes particular note of Articles 6 (1) and 6 (2) and Article 11 (1):

(i) Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural

heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate (Article 6 (1) (ii) The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage … if the States on whose territory it is situated so request (Article 6 (2)). (iii) Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the list … (Article 11 (1).

Decisive cooperative action is required by the Committee and States Parties to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative of the world’s natural and cultural heritage. 2. Tentative Lists (i) In the future, consistent with Article 11, .the tentative lists of cultural and natural sites should be used, as a planning tool to reduce the imbalances in the World Heritage List. States Parties are reminded of the invitation to submit tentative lists in conformity with Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee should revise paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Operational Guidelines to extend to natural sites its decision not to examine nominations of sites for inscription if the property does not appear on a tentative list. (ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should proceed with an analysis of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and the tentative list on a regional, chronological, geographical and thematic basis. This analysis should be undertaken as soon as possible, taking into account the workload on advisory bodies and the financial implications of this work, particularly in regard to the large number of sites on the tentative list. For this reason, the work should be undertaken in two parts, sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and sites on the tentative list. The analysis will provide States Parties with a clear overview of the present situation, and likely trends in the short to medium term with a view to identifying under-represented categories. (iii) The advisory bodies should take into account in their analyses: ��The diversity and particularities of natural and

cultural heritage in each region, ��The results of regional Periodic Reporting, and

10

��The recommendations of the regional and thematic meetings on the harmonisation of tentative lists held since 1984 and those on the Global Strategy organised since 1994.

(iv) The World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies should communicate the results of the analyses to the World Heritage Committee and, following the Committee's examination, the results should be conveyed to States Parties to the Convention, together with the Committee's recommendations. This will allow them to prepare, revise and/or harmonise their tentative list, taking into account, where appropriate, regional considerations, and to take the results of the analyses into consideration for the submission of future nominations. (v) The results of the analyses should be communicated no later than 30 September 2001. 3. Nominations In order to promote the effective management of the increasing size of the World Heritage List, the Committee at each ordinary session will set the maximum number of nominations to be considered. In the first instance and on an interim basis, it is proposed that at the twenty-seventh session of the Committee in 2003, the number of nominations examined by the Committee will be limited to a maximum of 30 new sites. In order to determine which sites should be given priority for consideration, all nominations to be considered at the twenty-seventh session of the Committee must be received in full by the new due date of 1 February 2002 agreed by the Committee as part of the change of cycle of meetings. No State Parties should submit more than one nomination, except those States Parties that have no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List who will have the opportunity to propose two or three nominations. In order to address the issue of representivity of the List the following criteria will be applied in order of priority2: In the event that the number of nominations received exceeds the maximum number set by the Committee, the following priority system will be applied each year by the World Heritage Centre before nominations are transmitted to the advisory bodies for evaluation, in determining which sites should be taken forward for consideration:

2 In nominating properties to the List, States Parties are invited to keep in mind the desirability of achieving a reasonable balance between the numbers of cultural heritage and natural heritage properties included in the World Heritage List (Paragraph 15 of the Operational Guidelines)

1. Nominations of sites submitted by a State Party with no sites inscribed on the List;3 2. Nominations of sites from any State Party that illustrate un-represented or less represented categories of natural and cultural properties, as determined by analyses prepared by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies and reviewed and approved by the Committee; 3. Other nominations.

When applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as the secondary determining factor within the category where the number of nominations established by the Committee is reached. In addition to the approved maximum number of sites, the Committee will also consider nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines. Transition arrangements

Committee meeting, December 2001 No change to existing system. Committee meeting June 2002 Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage Centre prior to 31 December 2000 will be considered together with nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines. Committee meeting June 2003 Nominations to be submitted by 1 February 2002 and prioritized in accordance with the system as described above.

Review The system described above is to be reviewed by the Committee after two full years of operation.

3 In evaluating these, and all other nominations, the Advisory Bodies should continue to apply a strict evaluation of criteria as set out in the Operational Guidelines.

11

4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999 The Committee decided to call on States Parties concerned to inform the Committee with a minimum of delay, of measures taken in the implementation of the clauses of the Resolution adopted by the Twelfth General Assembly (Paragraph B) that invites all States Parties that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List to: (i) Apply paragraph 6 (vii) of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention:

a) by spacing voluntarily their nominations according to conditions that they will define, and/or b) by proposing only properties falling into categories still under-represented, and/or c) by linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is under-represented, or d) by deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations.

ii) Initiate and encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation with States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented in the List within the framework of the preparation of tentative lists, nominations and training programmes, iii) Give priority to the re-examination of their tentative lists within the framework of regional consultations and to the preparation of periodic reports. 5. Capacity Building for Under-represented Regions The Committee decided that cooperative efforts in capacity-building and training are necessary to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative and agrees that: (i) The World Heritage Centre should continue to promote training programmes, preferably at the regional level, aimed at allowing States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to be better versed in the Convention and to better implement the measures under Article 5. These primarily concern the identification, management, protection, enhancement and conservation of heritage. Such programmes should also assist States Parties to acquire and/or consolidate their expertise, in the preparation and harmonisation of their tentative lists and the preparation of nominations. (ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should use the opportunity of evaluation missions to hold regional training workshops to assist under-represented States in the methods of preparation of their tentative list and nominations. Appropriate financial and human resources should be provided through the World

Heritage Centre budget process to undertake such workshops. (iii) Requests by States Parties whose heritage is non-represented or under-represented should be given a high priority when the portion of the World Heritage budget relating to Preparatory Assistance in preparing nominations is developed. (iv) The order of priorities for the granting of international assistance, as defined in paragraphs 91 and 113-114 of the Operational Guidelines, should be revised in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines (Canterbury, United Kingdom) to improve the representivity of the World Heritage List and to be coherent with the Global Strategy. Beyond the conditions provided for by the Convention, and subject to the conclusions of the evaluation of international assistance, the new priority order should take into account: -The necessity of encouraging the beneficiary countries to develop measures for the implementation of the Convention in their country, - The order of priority for the examination of the nominations for inscription, - The state of preparation of the beneficiary countries, and - The necessity of giving priority to the least developed countries (LDCs) and countries with a low revenue. (v) Regional Plans of Action should be updated and developed within the framework of the Global Strategy. These should specify for each targeted region and State Party, the objective, action needed, responsibility, timetable for adoption, state of play and a mechanism to report on progress in implementing these at each session of the World Heritage Committee. In order to underline their incentive nature, the Plans of Action should highlight the actions by the States Parties concerned, notably in application of Article 5 of the Convention, and should mention the bilateral or multilateral co-operation programmes in the field of heritage in general, for the elaboration in particular of nominations. (vi) The next UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy should stress the necessity of adopting an intersectoral policy aimed at better implementing the Convention. From the 2002-2003 biennium, an intersectoral project should be developed and implemented to encourage the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to reinforce their capacity to protect, conserve and enhance it. The Committee noted that the Hungarian authorities had prepared a proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme to be examined by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (WHC-2000/CONF.204/19). The Committee decided that a review of the implementation and effectiveness of such measures should take place not later than 2003.

12

4. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES The Director of the World Heritage Centre thanked English Heritage and the Government of the United Kingdom for having organized, jointly with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International Expert Meeting on the Revision to the Operational Guidelines in Canterbury, England, from 10 to 14 April, 2000. He also thanked the Government of the United Kingdom for having offered to provide an additional financial contribution to this important activity in 2001. Following a report on the results of the Expert Meeting by Christopher Young (United Kingdom), who had chaired the meeting, the Committee decided that the Operational Guidelines be restructured according to the proposed new overall framework (WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.10).

I INTRODUCTION II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD

HERITAGE LIST III PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF

WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES IV INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE V ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE WORLD

HERITAGE CONVENTION The Committee requested that the Operational Guidelines be simplified, streamlined and presented in a user-friendly form with most of the existing and new supporting material to be moved to annexes and other documentation. The Committee asked that the Operational Guidelines be organized in a logical way, returning to the fundamental principles of the World Heritage Convention. The revised Operational Guidelines will introduce for the first time a consolidated section on the Protection and Conservation of World Heritage Properties. IUCN welcomed the excellent work done at the Canterbury Expert Meeting to propose a reshaping of the Operational Guidelines. IUCN agreed that a comprehensive overhaul of this key document was required rather than the past practice of incremental, ad hoc amendments. IUCN expressed their wish to contribute to a process of revisions and proposed five objectives for the revised Operational Guidelines:

1. The integration of cultural and natural criteria while maintaining the current wording of the natural criteria

2. The close link between concepts of integrity and authenticity

3. Stronger emphasis placed on site management 4. Emphasis on reactive monitoring as nothing does

more for the credibility of the Convention 5. More creative use of tentative lists.

The Committee decided that the process for revising the Operational Guidelines should be co-ordinated by the World Heritage Centre through a collaborative process involving representatives of States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat. It was agreed that revised

Operational Guidelines should reflect different regional and cultural perspectives. The Committee agreed to the following phased approach to the revision of the Operational Guidelines. The Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that additional human and financial resources would be required for the Centre to co-ordinate this process. Phase I Meeting at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris in

January 2001 to define the process for revising the Operational Guidelines

Phase II Preparation by the Secretariat of a first draft

revised text in English and French to reflect all current proposals for revision and showing the source of the proposed revisions

Phase III Circulation of the revised text to all States

Parties and posting of revised text on the Web Phase IV Contributions in writing from States Parties Phase V Meeting to refine new Operational

Guidelines, section by section Phase VI Submission of revised Operational Guidelines

to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee in 2001 for decision.

VII. PERIODIC REPORTING Report on the state of conservation of World Heritage in the Arab region VII.1 The report (WHC-2000/CONF.204/7) was presented to the Committee by Mr Abdelaziz Daoulatli, Consultant (WHC) for Periodic Reporting in the Arab Region. In all, as at the beginning of November 2000, there were 52 sites on the World Heritage List, of which 44 were inscribed prior to 1993 and the latter were the subject of the report. He explained the processes followed in the compilation of the report (a synthesis of 2,500 pages of data) and underscored the high level of co-operation received from the States Parties. Out of a possible 44 reports, 36 had been received. From his observations, Mr Daoulatli drew special attention of the Committee to the following areas:

- Absence of strategies and management plans - General absence of adequate documentation - Lack of and, in cases, absence of necessary

professional and technical skills - Ignorance about the World Heritage Convention

and a general public unawareness of the existence or significance of World Heritage sites

- Central government-driven initiatives and non-involvement of civil society, NGOs and the public

- Management-based on "rule of thumb" and not on scientific principles and consequently absence of key indicators

- Ill-defined or ill-understood values.

13

In the light of these observations, Mr Daoulatli advocated an Action Plan focused on:

�� Identification of properties �� Integrated management and conservation plans �� Preventive monitoring �� Promotion of the Convention and awareness

proposals on World Heritage sites �� Training and international co-operation.

VII.2 He recommended the holding of a second regional meeting to submit the final report to the States Parties of the Arab region; the harmonization of the tentative lists for the Arab Region; the limiting of new nominations whilst taking into account an equitable representation in States Parties and categories of properties, and focusing on the conservation of existing ones. He also recommended the setting up of a monitoring service for the Arab region and the study of an Action Plan, the implementation of which to be funded jointly by the World Heritage Fund and extrabudgetary sources. VII.3 The Delegates of Mexico, Italy, Canada, Morocco, Cuba, the Observer of the United Kingdom and the Delegate of Greece, as well as the Representative of IUCN, successively took the floor to express their satisfaction with the report, the first of its kind. They pointed out that it served as a prototype for the other regions, and conveyed their congratulations to the authors. The Delegate of Mexico questioned the existence of a system for inventories and the Delegate of Italy queried the reasons why some Arab States had advocated the revision of the statement of value in the nomination forms, or the elaboration of new statements of value. This notion of value was taken up by the Delegate of Morocco, who considered it to be a critical question that deserved thorough discussion. He also drew attention to the appropriateness of the Moroccan boundary, as reflected on the presenter's map of the Arab region. The Observer of the United Kingdom underlined the need to take into account, at the time of the revision of the Operational Guidelines, changes concerning the boundaries of the inscribed sites or their buffer zones. The Delegate of Greece emphasized the need to evaluate, prior to the inscription of new sites, their management plans. She referred to the statement of the Observer of the United Kingdom, to integrate monitoring into the framework of the global approach to site management, idea also taken up by the Representative of IUCN. VII.4 Noting the awareness problem, the Delegate of Canada suggested that the Secretariat arrange a meeting with the representatives of the States Parties of the Arab region to appraise them on the Report. The Secretariat could arrange another meeting with possible funding agencies. In concluding, the Chairperson invited the Director of the Centre to study the proposals contained in the Report, as they were unanimously supported by all delegates, who looked forward to their implementation, in co-operation with the States Parties concerned. In this respect, the Director was called upon to convene a meeting

with the Permanent Delegates to UNESCO to inform them of the results of the periodic reporting exercise. Periodic Reporting: Progress report on regional strategies for periodic reporting. VII.5 The Secretariat recalled that in accordance with the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-second session regarding the application of Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention, the following principles guide the design and implementation of the regional periodic reporting strategies: • = The States Parties themselves are responsible for the

preparation of national Periodic Reports. • = States Parties may request expert advice from the

Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the States Parties.

• = Periodic reporting will provide the framework for the exchange of experiences among States Parties.

• = Periodic reporting is a participatory process in which all World Heritage partners are involved.

• = The Secretariat will facilitate the implementation of the periodic reporting requirement by the States Parties and will synthesise the national reports by region. In doing so, full use will be made of the available expertise of the advisory bodies, States Parties, competent institutions and expertise available within the region.

VII.6 Following the overall approaches to periodic reporting for the Arab States and Africa that were presented to and endorsed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-third session (working document WHC-99/CONF.209/12), a progress report on the implementation of the periodic reporting strategy for Africa, as well as the regional strategies for Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean were presented to the World Heritage Committee. VII.7 Concerning the African region reporting on 40 sites located in 18 States Parties, the Committee was informed that the first two phases of the seven-phase action plan were already completed. The remaining phases are foreseen for completion in time for the presentation of the regional synthesis report to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee in 2001: Phase I: Preparation of the periodic reporting exercise

and finalisation of a questionnaire Phase II: Exploitation of the first replies to the

questionnaires Phase III: Organisation of periodic reporting workshops

and set-up of electronic communication as well as analysis of questionnaires

Phase IV: Completion of analysis of questionnaires Phase V: Analysis and synthesis of periodic reporting

exercise Phase VI: Assistance missions to identify and solve

problems on the ground

14

Phase VII: Presentation of the regional report to the World Heritage Committee in 2001.

VII.8 A Periodic Reporting Workshop for the Francophone African countries was held in Dakar, Senegal from 5-8 July 2000. Site managers of four cultural and five natural sites attended this Workshop representing six out of the invited nine countries. Various sections of the reporting questionnaire were examined by the participants. The participating managers, who completed the questionnaires themselves, expressed their general satisfaction with this reporting tool, which was designed by the World Heritage Centre. At the Workshop several general problems concerning site management and more specifically information-flow and decision-making processes were identified. Furthermore, the lack of human and material resources was highlighted, especially emphasising the need for regular training to enable site managers to apply more efficiently the decisions of the World Heritage Committee. A regional Periodic Reporting Workshop for Anglophone African countries will be held during the first half of 2001. VII.9 The geographically vast Asia-Pacific Region, with 26 Asian and six Pacific States Parties, is home to 124 World Heritage sites. There are 42 natural or mixed World Heritage sites distributed over thirteen countries in Asia and the Pacific. Of these, 42 natural or mixed, 33 from eleven countries were inscribed on the World Heritage List in or before 1994 and will be included in the periodic reporting exercise. Three of the eleven countries, i.e. Australia, China and India, account for 21 of the 33 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List up until 1994. As for cultural heritage sites, out of 84 cultural World Heritage sites in the Asia-Pacific Region, all concentrated in the Asian Region, 55 were inscribed before or in 1994 located within 14 States Parties. In China, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are located 36 of 55 of these cultural sites. The reporting approach is subdivided into the following four phases: Phase I: Information to States Parties of the periodic

reporting procedures Phase II: Desk studies to harmonise and collate

existing data Phase III: Collection and analysis of data Phase IV: Preparation of a synthesis report and

submission for examination by the Committee in 2002.

VII.10 Considering that an integrated approach combining all forms of assistance for national capacity building has been applied in the region since 1996, fact sheets on countries and on sites which have been compiled, will be made available to the States Parties for the reporting exercise. National focal points are being identified and a regional meeting for cultural properties to be hosted by the Republic of Korea in early 2001, followed by sub-regional meetings in 2002, are intended to stimulate exchange of information and experience to enrich the preparation of the synthesis report for submission to the Committee in 2002.

VII.11 The process for Latin America and the Caribbean was presented as a five-phase approach, leading from a preparatory information phase, through three sub-regional meetings and one regional meeting to the presentation of the regional report to the Committee in 2003. The first phase, which is already underway, is centred on informing the concerned States Parties about the reporting process and providing them with the necessary information material. The States Parties have been requested to identify national focal points. VII.12 For Europe and North America, a regional strategy proposal will be submitted to the Committee at its twenty-fifth session. VII.13 During the debate, several States Parties and IUCN took the floor. Regarding the action plans presented for the Asia-Pacific region, the Delegate of Australia remarked that it was not entirely clear how the process leads from the preparation of national reports to the synthesis report to be presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2002. Concern was expressed that the region's States Parties had not been given enough opportunities to contribute to the development of the action plan. The Delegate of Hungary highlighted the importance of the reporting exercise and suggested the use of the regional division used by UNESCO, i.e. Europe and North America, to be divided into the Western Europe and North America group and the Eastern and Central European group, taking into consideration the different budgetary requirements of these sub-regions. The Delegate of Italy asked about the existence of management plans for African sites. The Secretariat responded that most of the African sites do not have management plans and those that do are facing difficulties in their implementation due to lack of financial resources and expertise. A request by the African States Parties for a model management plan applicable to the African context was mentioned by the Secretariat. The Delegate of Canada remarked that the approaches outlined in Annex 4 of Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/8 mentioned the creation of reporting tools in different regions and stated the need to avoid the duplication of efforts. She suggested that the World Heritage Centre take the leadership in co-ordinating these efforts. IUCN commended the Secretariat as well as the States Parties for the preparation of the action plan for Asia-Pacific and welcomed the proposed linkage between periodic reporting and reactive monitoring, as well as the provisions for input from external bodies such as the advisory bodies and NGOs. IUCN furthermore informed the Committee about a World Heritage Centre/IUCN project focused on monitoring, which is funded by the United Nations Foundation over a four-year period. The project will operate in pilot World Heritage sites in Eastern and Southern Africa, South Asia and Latin America. The selection of sites is currently being discussed with States Parties, site managers and other partners. In preparation of the periodic reporting exercise, IUCN urges linking meetings whenever possible to avoid the multiplication and duplication of efforts.

15

VII.14 The Committee approved the regional strategies presented in Annexes I, II, III and IV of Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/8. The budgetary implications are considered under item 13 of the Agenda (WHC-2000/CONF.204/15, Chapter IV of the budget). VIII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES

INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

A. REPORTS OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF

PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

VIII.1 The Committee reviewed document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 describing state of conservation reports of eighteen natural and five cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. A. NATURAL HERITAGE VIII.2 The Committee was informed that in accordance with the recommendation it made at the last session, the Centre and IUCN had organised a workshop on the "Role of World Heritage Danger Listing in Promoting International Co-operation for the Conservation of World Natural Heritage" on 6 and 7 October 2000 in Amman, Jordan, at the time of IUCN's Second World Conservation Congress. As requested by the participants of that Workshop, the Committee noted the seven priority recommendations included in WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 and suggested that the Centre consider incorporating them as appropriate in revisions to the Operational Guidelines. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to consult with States Parties and other suitable partners to study the feasibility of implementing the priority recommendations and submit a report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001. VIII.3 Iguacu National Park (Brazil) The Committee noted that an oil spill that occurred 600 km from the site did not have any major impact on the site. The Committee recognised that the illegal opening and the use of the Colon Road is the most immediate threat to the site and learned that IBAMA has allocated the equivalent of US $560,000 to support action related to the closure of the road and to restore areas affected by road construction. The Committee was informed that the Brazilian participant at the workshop held in Amman, Jordan had informed the Centre and IUCN of other potential threats posed by expanding agricultural lands outside of the northeastern sectors of the Park that would require systematic monitoring.

The Committee commended the State Party for its persistence in strictly enforcing the Federal legal decision to close the Colon Road and urged the State Party to communicate the reasons for the closure of the road to the wider public and take all necessary actions to restore the World Heritage area affected by road construction activities. The Committee invited the State Party to report

to the Centre, before 15 April 2001, on progress to ensure effective closure of the Colon Road and rehabilitate impacted areas. The State Party was also requested to provide an up-date on the results of monitoring the impacts of the oil spill that occurred in July 2000. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.4 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) The Committee was informed that the Minister of Environment and Water, by a letter dated 11 September 2000, has transmitted a state of conservation report to the Centre. The report reached the Centre only on 17 November 2000 and hence allowed only a preliminary desk-review by IUCN. The report describes changes in physical (e.g. water quality) and biodiversity indicators that show improvements in the state of conservation of the site. It outlines measures taken by the State Party to strengthen social, cultural and political support for the protection of the site, including regional and international arrangements made to co-ordinate the overall protection of wetlands in the Danube River basin. The report stresses the fact that the improvements registered in the state of conservation of the site, including the administrative and organizational arrangements put in place to sustain those improvements, justify the removal of Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. However, IUCN, while noting the positive achievements in the state of conservation reported, suggested that the Committee defer its consideration of the removal of Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger until a site visit is undertaken to assess the results of the rehabilitation efforts reported by the State Party. The Committee thanked and commended the State Party for submitting a comprehensive report and for its efforts to fully rehabilitate the site. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other suitable partners to field a mission to the site to undertake a thorough evaluation of the successes of the rehabilitation efforts reported and their sustainability. The Committee asked the Centre and IUCN to submit a report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001, advising the Committee whether it could remove Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger and of the next steps in preparing a trans-national, multi-country Danube Delta World Heritage area nomination incorporating designated and potential World Heritage areas of the Danube Delta River Basin. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.5 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park

(Central African Republic (CAR)) The Committee was informed that a representative of the State Party had presented a paper on the state of conservation of the site at the Amman Workshop held on 6 and 7 October 2000. He had confirmed that poaching, including by armed groups from neighbouring States, was

16

widespread in the area and that an UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site to plan mitigation and rehabilitation measures would be welcome. The UNESCO National Commission of CAR had contacted the Centre and plans to field a mission were underway. The Committee noted opportunities for possible collaboration with a US-based non-governmental organisation, namely the Earth Conservancy. The Committee thanked the UNESCO National Commission of CAR for facilitating discussions to plan and field a mission to the site and for arrangements to prepare a state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to undertake the mission as early as possible in 2001 with a view to submitting a comprehensive report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.6 World Heritage sites of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (DRC) The Committee noted detailed information on the state of conservation of the five sites in the DRC, i.e. Virunga, Garamba and Kahuzi Biega and Salonga National Parks and the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, reported from pages 2 to 5 of the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9. Furthermore, the Committee noted the following additional information reported by the Centre: (1) In addition to the UNOMC, contacts have been established with members of a UN Panel conducting a Probe on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in DRC and located at the UN complex in Nairobi, Kenya. Information on the state of conservation of the five sites will be regularly transmitted to the UN Panel mentioned above for appropriate action; (2) A Co-ordination Unit for the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project has been operational in Nairobi, Kenya since 10 September 2000, assisted by the services of a consultant and an "ICCN Homologue" seconded by ICCN, Kinshasa. Recruitment of a Project Co-ordinator had been delayed but is likely to finalized before the end of the first quarter of 2001; (3) A meeting of technical personnel representing the three different governance regimes within the territory of the DRC was convened from 8 to 10 November 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. The three technical personnel have signed a formal agreement of co-operation that will facilitate the monitoring of the state of conservation of the sites, execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project, information and material exchange between sites and the organization and conduct of joint activities involving staff from the five sites. Furthermore, the three authorities have also agreed to co-ordinate together movements and career development options for ICCN personnel, despite prevailing administrative and political barriers to such co-ordination; (4) Following a meeting on 28 September 2000, the Director-General of UNESCO and the Executive Director of UNEP expressed an interest to lead a high-level mission to the capitals of the three countries (i.e. Kinshasa, Kigali

and Kampala) implicated in the war in eastern DRC to meet with the Heads of States and other important personalities and draw their attention to the need to respect international law and strengthen conservation of the all World Heritage sites in the area, and particularly those in eastern DRC. The possibility of fielding such a mission will be further pursued by the Centre in co-operation with relevant partners of UNESCO under the framework of activities for executing the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project. The three technical authorities located in the three different regions of DRC (see point 3 above) have committed to facilitate such a high-level diplomatic mission to the fullest extent possible, if and when it is fielded. IUCN underlined the significance and the timeliness of the financial support provided by the UN Foundation to support the work of site personnel and commended the dedication and commitment of the site staff to protect the sites. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Centre has established contracts with project partners for payment of salaries, performance related bonuses and medical and food rations to site staff in all of the five World Heritage sites and transfer of funds to benefit site staff are about to begin soon. The UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP project has set aside funds for the continuation of such payments to site staff over a period of four years; i.e. until October 2004. The Committee also noted with appreciation the support of the Government of Belgium for a project focusing on providing support to local communities in and around the five sites to enable them to contribute towards their protection. The Government of Belgium is expected to provide a sum of US$ 500,000 for the four-year project that is expected to begin in early 2001. The Centre, based on information received from partners of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project and a variety of other sources, informed the Committee that the state of conservation in Garamba and Virunga National Parks was relatively good. In Okapi, recent assistance from military authorities in the region had enabled staff of the Wildlife Reserve to disarm poaching gangs and improve conservation prospects. Salonga, though outside of the war zone and still accessible to ICCN-Kinshasa, is significantly threatened by illegal poaching. The situation in Kahuzi Biega is the most disconcerting, as staff do not have access to nearly 90% of the Park's surface area. The Committee requested the Centre to further develop its relations and explore optimal ways of liaising with UNOMC and other appropriate bodies, like the UN Panel undertaking a Probe on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in DRC, in order to promote the links between peace-building and World Heritage conservation in DRC and in neighbouring countries. The Committee recommended that the Centre, in co-operation with ICCN and other partners, ensure effective execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP project emphasizing and prioritizing project components that strengthen the work of site staff. The Committee urged the Centre to work with

17

relevant administrative and support units of UNESCO to find ways and means to ensure rapid and effective transfer of funds via project partners to on-site beneficiaries who are attempting to protect World Heritage sites in a zone of high security risks. The Committee thanked and welcomed the interest of the Government of Belgium to support a project that would enable local communities to work with site staff to support conservation of the five sites, and urged UNESCO and the Centre to expedite finalisation of negotiations with Belgium to enable early transfer of assistance to local communities resident near the five sites. The Committee decided that all five sites be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.7 Sangay National Park (Ecuador) The Committee was informed that the Minister for Environment of Ecuador participated in the Amman Workshop and had noted that the inclusion of the Sangay National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger had helped the Ministry of Environment in negotiations with the Ministry Public Works and other Government bodies to obtain resources to evaluate environmental impacts of the Guamote Macas Road and plan mitigation measures. The Minister was of the view that despite recent improvements in the state of conservation of the site, Sangay should continue to remain in the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN informed the Committee that the increased access to the site resulting from the construction of the Guamote Macas Road could threaten the integrity of the site The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN continue negotiations with the State Party to elaborate a plan with indicators and benchmarks, including those that could signal the timing for the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee endorsed IUCN's view that indicators must directly relate to the values for which the site had been granted World Heritage status and that they should be clear, understandable and capable of replication over time. The Committee retained Sangay in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.8 Simen National Park (Ethiopia) The Committee was informed that the Director of the Department of Agriculture from the Amhara Region, which is directly responsible for the management of this site, participated in the Amman Workshop. In his presentation, the Director had pointed out several improvements in the state of conservation of the site and expressed his disagreement with the 1996 consultant mission findings that led to the Committee to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia, by letter of 16 October 2000 to the Director of the Centre, has confirmed agreement of the Amhara Regional authorities to receive a new and high-level consultant mission that may view and discuss the many efforts of the Regional Government to rehabilitate the Park. Such efforts including: (a) increases in budget and staff deployment; (b) favourable outcome of

discussions with local communities; (c) steering committee for rehabilitation and development; (d) a 5-year plan for execution; (e) strengthened co-operation with donors; and (e) increased numbers of key species such as ibexes and red foxes. In the same letter, the Permanent Delegate also informed the Centre that the Amhara Regional Government is intending to propose a realignment of a road expected to run through the Park, resettle farmers currently resident inside the Park and enlarge the Park and redefine boundaries to excise areas occupied by villagers

The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party and the Amhara Region to field a site visit to Simen National Park in order to prepare a report for the next session of the Committee, including observations and comments on existing plans for rehabilitation and changes and modifications to such plans that may be needed. In preparing such a report, the Centre and IUCN may also wish to discuss indicators and benchmarks that may be described and be useful in determining when the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.9 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) The Committee noted that at a World Heritage and Mining Technical Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters from 20-23 September, 2000, the case of Mt. Nimba was discussed and participants noted that key issues at this site include: (a) the need for clear boundary demarcation, taking into consideration the boundaries proposed at the time of inscription and changes proposed subsequently; (b) the need for effective transboundary co-operation between the two States Parties (Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire) as well as Liberia, which has yet to ratify the Convention; and (c) the need to stimulate fund-raising efforts for this site, based on previous proposals and recommendations, including those made by the Committee concerning the establishment of a fund or a foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Director General of CEGEN (Centre for Environmental Management of Mt. Nimba), presented a paper at the Amman Workshop which reiterated the findings reported at the World Heritage and Mining Workshop referred to above. In that context, the Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with CEGEN and relevant authorities in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia to address points (a), (b) and (c), as described above, and prepare an action plan describing specific measures to be taken within a defined time period. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.10 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) The Committee was informed that the Centre/IUCN mission to this site was fielded from 24 to 30 October 2000. A preliminary report of the mission indicated that of the ten major recommendations of the previous (1995) Centre/IUCN mission which led to the inclusion of this

18

site in the List of World Heritage in Danger 1996, five have been implemented. Some notable achievements made since 1995 include: completion of a participatory management plan; increasing on-the-ground management presence; establishment of inter-agency control posts in strategic locations; preparation and the beginning of the execution of an inter-institutional action plan; and organization of agro-forestry co-operatives. Continuing concerns regarding the integrity of the site centre around: deforestation rates in the buffer zone that exceed the national average (4%); resettling core-zone family units into the buffer zone and land-titling issues in influence zones; and unacceptable levels of logging and poaching. The mission report acknowledges and appreciates the support given by the German Government to the conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee was informed of a UN Foundation-financed project to link biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism development targeting six sites, including Rio Platano. This project may generate employment and economic benefits via outreach, ecotourism and research activities as recommended by the 1995 mission. The Committee requested the Centre to transmit the full report of the IUCN/Centre mission to the site to the State Party to obtain formal written responses and comments from the State Party for submission to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the State Party to continue its efforts to improve management of the site. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.11 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) in New Delhi, in a letter of 26 September 2000 addressed to the Charge d'Affairs of the Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO suggested that the proposed UNESCO World Heritage Centre mission to Manas be undertaken in May 2001. The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife also presented a paper at the IUCN/Centre Workshop in Amman in which he emphasised the fact that the inclusion of Manas in the List of World Heritage in Danger has influenced State and Central Government decision to invest funds to rehabilitate the Sanctuary. IUCN observed that this is another example of a site where the inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger resulted in the elaboration of a rehabilitation plan and its execution with partial support from the World Heritage Fund.

The Committee recommended that the Centre/IUCN mission to review progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation plan adopted in 1997 and partly financed by grants amounting to US$ 165,000 from the World Heritage Fund be undertaken in May 2001 as proposed by the State Party, and a report submitted to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to use all available information to plan the site visit, particularly to assess the impacts of the rehabilitation measures designed to minimize poaching

threats to the rhinos in Manas. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger VIII.12 Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) The Committee was informed that the State Party had notified the Centre that it wished to complete implementation of all activities of the rehabilitation programme before requesting the Committee to consider removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. A representative of the State Party who participated and presented a paper at the Amman Workshop confirmed this position of the State Party. The Committee invited the State Party to submit a comprehensive progress report, before 15 April 2001, to the Centre on the achievements of the rehabilitation programme implemented to date. It also requested the Centre and IUCN to review that report and submit their findings to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. The Centre and IUCN should undertake a detailed assessment of the threats to the site that have been effectively mitigated and determine the need for any additional actions that may be required to enable the twenty-fifth session of the Committee to decide whether or not this site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee at its twenty-fifth session at the end of 2001. The Committee retained this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.13 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) The Committee was informed that following two winters of adequate rainfall that allowed recovery of the freshwater vegetation, reversal in rainfall patterns has led to a renewed increase in the salinity of Lake waters, resembling levels that prevailed in the area in 1997 and as such, the benefits of the restoration of the Lake achieved during the last two years are in danger of being lost. Such unpredictable, climate-induced reversals are likely to happen in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee stressed the need to fully implement the recommendations of a mission to the site undertaken in March 2000 by a team comprising representatives from IUCN, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other international and regional organisations described in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9. A representative of the State Party who participated at the Centre/IUCN Workshop in Amman, Jordan from 6 to 7 October 2000, also emphasised the importance of implementing the recommendations of the March 2000 mission team. The Committee recommended that the State Party take all necessary steps to implement, as expeditiously as possible, the recommendations of the mission team that visited the site in March 2000. The Committee highlighted, in particular, the importance of the development of a clear timetable of activities leading to measurable improvements of the Lake and surrounding marshes within the next five years. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the State Party once again to obtain a formal written response to the recommendations proposed by the mission team that

19

visited the site in March 2000. The Committee retained this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.14 Rwenzori Mountains (Uganda) The Committee noted that the Executive Director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UAW), in his letter of 13 September 2000, has stressed that the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) should be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger, owing to the fact that: (a) RMNP is still closed to visitors and effects of insurgency by armed groups continue to affect management, habitats and wildlife; (b) Communities resident around the Park are equally affected and regard the Park as a major source of resources posing clear threats to habitats and wildlife and, in the absence of control and management, may adopt unsustainable resource use practices; and (c) the Park lacks basic management tools to meet the challenges of insurgency and community pressure for resources. The Executive Director has welcomed suggestions of the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau to increase international awareness for the conservation of the site and expressed his readiness to work with the Centre and others concerned for raising funds for the protection of the World Heritage site in Danger. The Committee noted that the Centre has initiated communication with the Executive Director to explore possibilities for financing projects and activities to strengthen conservation of the site. The Committee suggested that the Centre and IUCN continue to explore possibilities to raise international awareness for the conservation of this site, and co-operate with the State Party and concerned UN units in the region to study ways and means, including mobilising necessary financial resources, to support staff responsible for the protection of the site and minimize threats posed by militant and armed groups. The Committee retained the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.15 World Heritage sites of the United States of

America: Everglades National Park Yellowstone National Park The Committee recalled that the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to meet with the State Party and discuss the preparation of a schedule of actions for complete rehabilitation of the site and its eventual removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Centre, IUCN and relevant authorities from the State Party, including the Directors of the two sites, participated in a conference call on 27 October 2000. The Observer of the United States of America informed the Committee that measures to address the threats to both Parks continue to be undertaken. In the view of the State Party, neither Yellowstone nor Everglades National Park has shown enough progress to warrant removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Following the conference call, consultations between the Centre, IUCN and the State Party, comprehensive discussions of the issue

by the appropriate US Department of the Interior and National Park Service staff have taken place. U.S. officials determined that complex scientific analyses of measures necessary to abate the threats to these two Parks are required. They have also concluded that it will be possible to prepare for review by the Committee a schedule of actions necessary for the eventual removal of these two sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger. This schedule will include measures as part of a national assessment of risks to Parks based on domestic law. Once this national assessment has been completed, the U.S. will derive from those analyses the information necessary to respond more fully to the Bureau's request. Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service will continue to submit interim reports on the condition of the two Parks and will work on completing the schedule for their removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Observer of the United States of America also indicated that the Operational Guidelines do not provide clear procedures for removing sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Consequently, the potential exists for different interpretations of how removal from the List should be accomplished. It was noted that the issue had not been resolved in the Operational Guidelines revisions proposed by the Canterbury Working Group. Accordingly, it was believed that a technical workshop on the process for delisting, involving other States Parties, as well as the United States, is well merited. Such a workshop could propose an appropriate amendment to the Operational Guidelines. IUCN welcomed the observations of the Observer of the United States and agreed that the elaboration of measures and indicators that could provide a systematic approach to placing and removal of sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger require considerable research work and scientific analyses. IUCN expressed its readiness to co-operate with the State Party and the Centre to test out work needed to improve these aspects of state conservation monitoring. The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with the State Party to carry out the necessary scientific and technical work, using suitable means such as conference calls and workshops, in order to put in place a schedule of actions that will enable the Committee to track improvements in the state of conservation of these two sites in an objective manner and determine, in consultation with the State Party, the appropriate time for their removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

20

CULTURAL HERITAGE State of Conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger VIII.16 Butrint (Albania) The Committee recalled that in October 1997, a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation mission was undertaken to assess the damages caused to the site by civil unrest earlier that year. US$ 100,000 was made available as emergency assistance in 1997 to implement activities identified in the Programme of Corrective Actions, but to date, no report has been received on its implementation. The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party to submit a progress report by 15 April 2001 on the implementation of recommendations of the 1997 UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation Joint Mission, to enable the Bureau to examine this case at its twenty-fifth session. Noting the apparent difficulties in the implementation of the Programme of Corrective Actions, including those financed under the World Heritage Fund's Emergency Assistance, the Committee requested the Albanian authorities concerned to establish the administrative procedures necessary to enable the implementation of the Programme. The Committee requested UNESCO and ICOMOS to undertake a joint mission in early-2001 for an assessment of the current situation and to report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. VIII.17 Angkor (Cambodia) The Secretariat recalled that this site, inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the time of its inscription in 1992, is the largest cultural site in Southeast Asia. It extends over an area of some 400 km2 and includes no less than 100 monuments and hundreds of archaeological features. The socio-economic needs of the inhabitants require integration of conservation and development considerations. Although the armed conflict in the region of Angkor, which prompted its in-danger listing is now over, looting, illicit excavation and traffic in cultural objects and the continued need for large-scale international assistance, have kept this site on the Danger List. It was recalled that the Committee expressed concern at its twenty-third session in 1999, and the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, regarding the airport extension plan, rapid development of tourism facilities, and uncoordinated public and private works that may undermine the integrity of the site. Responding to the Committee's request for APSARA, the site management authority, and the International Coordinating Committee for Angkor (ICC) to coordinate all conservation and development projects in the region and strengthen national capacity through training, the State Party, through the UNESCO Office in Phnom Penh, provided

the information contained in WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 for the attention of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. The Delegate of Hungary stated that despite past requests by the Bureau and the Committee for the report of the ICC meetings, these had not been made available. Furthermore, he drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the report on all on-going and planned projects for conservation, as well as on infrastructure had not been received. He urged the Committee and the advisory bodies to demonstrate more commitment for the safeguarding of this outstanding site. The Secretariat, at the invitation of the Chair, responded that the case of Angkor has been examined by the Bureau and Committee, at every single session since 1992, or no less than 20 times. All requests for international assistance submitted by the State Party have been supported, in addition to multi-year projects being financed through the Culture Sector of UNESCO in the largest operational programme being undertaken by the Organization. As for the advisory bodies, the Committee was informed that ICOMOS participated in the ICC meeting, and both IUCN and ICCROM have had operational presence, including a highly successful well-appreciated training programme (Tanee) recently implemented by ICCROM. The Committee, after having examined the report on the state of conservation of the site, congratulated the Royal Government of Cambodia for the significant progress made in the field of training thus ensuring the control and maintenance of the monuments and encouraged it to continue in its efforts. The Committee invited the APSARA and UNESCO to strengthen development activities for the collection of documents for the International Centre for Scientific and Technical Documentation of Angkor, which should aim at securing all documentation produced during the safeguarding and development projects of the site. It also encouraged further efforts to develop partnerships with international teams at the site.

Furthermore, the Committee requested additional information on the monitoring of work undertaken on the entrance porch of the central monument and the collapsed tiers of the western moat of the Angkor Vat Temple. The Committee reiterated its earlier request for information concerning tourism development at the site and the development of infrastructure in this respect, with particular reference to the question of the extension of the Siem Reap/Angkor airport. Finally, the Committee decided to retain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.18 Group of Monuments of Hampi (India) The Committee’s attention was drawn to the state of conservation of the Group of Monuments of Hampi and the updated information concerning progress made by the State Party in removing the threats facing the site caused by the ad-hoc public works within the World Heritage protected areas. The Committee examined the findings and

21

recommendations for corrective measures of the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring (February 2000) requested by the Committee at its twenty-third session. It noted with appreciation the successful work of the Karnataka State Government’s Task Force for Hampi that examined the ICOMOS-UNESCO mission recommendations leading to the State Government's decision to demolish and relocate the two bridges that were negatively impacting upon the site. The Committee noted that the Task Force Chairperson had informed the Director-General of UNESCO that the decision by the State Government had been received favourably by the general public in India. The Committee also examined the deliberations and decision of the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, as well as the resolution concerning Hampi adopted by the participants of the UNESCO-Archaeological Survey of India National Workshop for Management of Indian World Cultural Heritage (22-24 October 2000). The Observer of India expressed her Government’s appreciation for the co-operation of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the actions taken to enhance conservation and management of this site. She informed the Committee that the Indian Government was taking all necessary actions to ensure the conservation and development of this unique and vast site. The Observer stated that the construction of the two bridges was halted, not withstanding repeated news that work to complete the bridges had resumed. The Observer informed the Committee that the State Government of Karnakata decided to dismantle and relocate the footbridge connecting the Virupaksha Temple and the Virapapura Gada Island. Reference was also made to other actions such as removal of illegal encroachment and preparation of a comprehensive management plan, being taken by the District Commissioner of Bellary. The relevant State authorities were committed to ensure the protection of the integrity and authenticity of the site. The Committee was informed that the Chief Minister of the State Government of Karnataka had recently announced his commitment to protect the World Heritage areas of Hampi, and that a careful study of the vehicular bridge would be undertaken, with a view to maintaining a balance between the needs to protect the heritage values and those of the local community members who had been demanding the construction of these bridges and therefore had strong views on the matter. The Observer underlined the importance of fully involving the local communities in the process of elaborating the comprehensive management plan. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the positive actions and measures taken by the State Party to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Group of Monuments of Hampi. The Committee requested State Party to submit for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session, a report on the progress made in:

(a) relocating the two intrusive bridges outside the World Heritage site;

(b) implementing the 4-point recommendations for corrective measures of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission in February 2000;

(c) preparing a comprehensive management plan for the site.

In addition, the Committee requested the Government of India to examine the possibilities of establishing a special administrative body empowered to ensure integrated development and conservation of the whole World Heritage protected areas, whose primary objective would be to co-ordinate various development and cultural and natural heritage conservation activities within the protected areas of Hampi World Heritage site. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to continue closely co-operating with the State Party to ensure the development of a comprehensive management plan. The Committee decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.19 Bahla Fort (Oman) The Secretariat informed the Committee that following the recommendations of the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau, two consultants prepared "Guidelines for the establishment of a Management Plan for Bahla Fort and Oasis, a World Heritage Site". A mission was scheduled to visit the site in September 2000 to discuss the management plan, but the mission has been rescheduled to December 2000. A report will be provided to the Bureau for examination at its twenty-fifth session. The Committee encouraged the State Parties to proceed with the preparation of the management plan and furnish a progress report by 15 April 2001. It decided to retain the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger. VIII.20 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) As suggested by ICOMOS at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000, the Peruvian authorities prepared a single volume Management Plan to summarize the nine volumes previously produced and approved. Furthermore, a document on the state of conservation of the site was submitted to the World Heritage Centre, following the periodic reporting format. The entire documentation was transmitted to ICOMOS. The Committee commended the State Party for its efforts to protect the property and to implement the Master Plan and congratulated the completion of the single volume Management Plan and the use of the periodic reporting format for the state of conservation document. The Committee requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on further progress made in the implementation of the Management Plan by 15 September 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fifth session. The Committee furthermore decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

22

REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST VIII.21 The Committee considered the decisions of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.204/4) and the working document WHC-2000/CONF.204/10). The relevant section of the report of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau is attached as Annex X. i) Natural properties which the Committee inscribed

on the List of World Heritage in Danger VIII.22 Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) The Committee noted the results of the joint expert mission by the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Bureau undertaken from 14 – 22 September 2000, which was examined by the Bureau. The report of the mission called for urgent financial assistance to deal with the introduced species Salvinia molesta. In view of the imminent danger facing the site, the Director of Senegal National Parks had requested that the site be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN highlighted the seriousness of the threat to both the environment and the economy of the region, and the difficulty of controlling the introduced species. The Delegate of Benin commented that the site is facing a number of threats as discussed by the Bureau, and that danger listing would be an appropriate step to be taken. The Committee decided to include the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the State Party. The Committee furthermore called on international donor support. ii) State of conservation reports of natural properties

examined by the Committee VIII.23 Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico) The Secretariat informed the Committee that, following the President of Mexico’s statement of 2 March 2000, the proposed salt works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino would not proceed. The Committee noted that letters from the Chairperson of the Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO welcomed this decision and congratulated the President of Mexico for the actions taken to implement the World Heritage Convention. The UN Foundation had approved a US$ 2.5 million project entitled “Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites” for six sites, including the two natural sites in Mexico, the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and Sian Ka’an. The Committee furthermore noted that the Management Plan of the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve has been published and transmitted to the Centre. The Committee commended the Mexican Government for its actions to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and

to implement the World Heritage Convention. It encouraged the authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in implementing on-site projects for demonstrating possibilities for generating employment and income for local communities, such as the UN Foundation project on 'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage Sites'.

iii ) State of conservation reports of natural properties

noted by the Committee VIII.24 World Natural Heritage Properties of

Australia Shark Bay, Western Australia Great Barrier Reef The Secretariat informed the Committee that a letter on the recent grounding incident was received from the Australian authorities on 28 November 2000 and that a report will be presented to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Bureau in 2001. Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves Wet Tropics of Queensland Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland) Pirin National Park (Bulgaria) Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon) Gros Morne National Park (Canada) Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada) VIII.25 Los Katios National Park (Colombia) The Delegate of Colombia informed the Bureau that the field visit foreseen from 10-12 November 2000 had not taken place and looked forward to a visit in 2001. Such a field visit would not only review the state of conservation of the site, but moreover review co-operation possibilities for a World Heritage nomination of the meso-american biological corridor project and transboundary collaboration with the adjacent Darien National Park (Panama). Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire) Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) Komodo National Park (Indonesia) Lorenz National Park (Indonesia) Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya) Te Wahipounamu – South West New Zealand (New Zealand) Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) Huascarán National Park (Peru) Danube Delta (Romania) VIII.26 Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation) The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the proposed road and gas pipeline through the Ukok Plateau is supported at the highest political level. The project will be

23

reviewed at a meeting on 15 and 16 December 2000 in the Altai Republic. VIII.27 Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation) The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the information provided in the Bureau report seemed to relate to the Kamchatka region and not the World Heritage site. He stated that in-depth information would be provided by September 2001. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) Doñana National Park (Spain) Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka) Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda) Gough Island (United Kingdom) Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti

National Park (United Republic of Tanzania) Ha Long Bay (Vietnam) Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) MIXED (CULTURAL AND NATURAL) PROPERTIES (i) Mixed properties which the Committee inscribed

on the List of World Heritage in Danger VIII.28 The Committee did not inscribe any mixed sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger. (ii) State of conservation reports of mixed properties

examined by the Committee VIII.29 Kakadu National Park (Australia) The Committee recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park. The Committee examined the state of conservation of this mixed cultural and natural property in two parts relating to natural values and cultural values. Natural values The Committee was informed that the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council of Science (ICSU) and a representative of IUCN had participated in a mission to Kakadu National Park and the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral Leases in July 2000. The Committee noted the conclusions of the report of the ISP of ICSU presented by Professor Brian Wilkinson, the leader of the ISP (WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.20) (see Annex XI), the statement made by IUCN to the Committee (see Annex XII) and the response of the Supervising Scientist of Australia (see Annex XIII).

The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that on 28 November 2000 the State Party had advised that a new agreement had been signed between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government to provide further regulation of mining in the Northern Territory. The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and IUCN for their constructive participation in the mission in July 2000. With reference to a concern raised about the change in ownership of the mining company Energy Resources of Australia Inc (ERA), he informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage had written to ERA on 22 September 2000, to ensure that they meet commitments made to the World Heritage Committee in July 1999. The Minister’s letter had been copied to the new parent company of ERA, Rio Tinto. ERA replied on 31 October 2000 confirming it would honour the commitments. The Delegate of Australia indicated his full respect for the advice of the ISP and Supervising Scientist concerning monitoring. He stated that he would seek resources for early implementation of monitoring at Jabiluka as part of normal budgetary appropriation procedures. Responding to questions relating to the ISP’s recommendation to establish an Independent Science Advisory Committee for the proposed mine and mill at Jabiluka raised by the Delegate of Finland, the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that the appointment of the chair and the majority of the voting members of the existing statutory scientific review committee will be made by learned societies in Australia such as the Australian Academy of Science and the equivalent academy for engineering and technology. The Committee adopted the following decision concerning the protection of the natural values of Kakadu National Park:

The twenty-fourth Session of the World Heritage Committee, recalling 1. The Committee decision of July 1999 that ICSU

should continue the work of the ISP to assess, in co-operation with the Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist’s response to the first ISP report

Notes 2. That the overall conclusion of the ISP is that the

Supervising Scientist has identified all the principal risks to the natural values of the Kakadu World Heritage site that can presently be perceived to result from the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative proposal; these risks have been analysed in detail and have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty; such analyses have shown the risks to be very small or

24

negligible and that the development of the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative should not threaten the natural World Heritage values of the Kakadu National Park

3. That the ISP assessment has been made only in

relation to the proposal to develop Jabiluka as described in the April 1999 Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World Heritage Committee and does not necessarily relate to any future new proposals for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative

4. That Australia has provided an assurance that all

new aspects of the Jabiluka proposal would be the subject of formal assessment by the Supervising Scientist and that any significant changes would be referred to the Chair of the scientific review committee (see below) for comment

5. That the ISP has made a number of

recommendations related to processes that should, in its view, be followed in the final design of the project and on the ongoing regulation and monitoring process

6. That the Australian government has accepted the

intent of all of the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN. In particular,

(a) The Australian Government has decided to

amend the membership and role of the existing statutory scientific review committee to meet the needs identified by the ISP in its recommendation on the establishment of an Independent Science Advisory Committee. The chair and the majority of the voting members will be appointed following selection by the most appropriate body representing Australian scientists and engineers, possibly the Australian Academy of Science. This Committee will be able to report openly, independently and without restriction

(b) The supervisory role of the Supervising

Scientist has been strengthened through the Agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments dated 17 November 2000

7. That Australia, noting that the natural values of

the lease and surrounding areas have been extensively investigated and documented through the environmental assessment process for Jabiluka, has undertaken to extend this work in the manner recommended by the ISP and the IUCN.

The World Heritage Committee: 8. Welcomes the work of the ISP and the IUCN and

the response of the Australian Government to their recommendations

9. Requests that the Australian Government allocate

resources as soon as possible to enable the implementation of the landscape and ecosystem analysis and monitoring program recommended by the ISP and IUCN and the appointment of a water resource specialist to the Office of the Supervising Scientist

10. In the light of the above, concludes that the

currently approved proposal for the mine and mill at Jabiluka does not threaten the health of people or the biological and ecological systems of Kakadu National Park that the 1998 Mission believed to be at risk.

Cultural values The Director of the World Heritage Centre referred the Committee to the text of the recommendation of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau. Since then, the Committee had been informed that he had received a letter dated 28 November 2000 from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, informing him that discussions between the Mirrar and the Australian Government in relation to a new process regarding cultural heritage protection (as outlined in the Bureau recommendation) had broken down. (See Annex XIV). The Representative of ICOMOS reflected that when ICOMOS had evaluated the Phase I and Phase 2 nominations of Kakadu, for inclusion on the World Heritage List, the cultural values had been assessed in relation to the area’s archaeology and rock art. It had only been in the evaluation of Phase 3 of the nomination that the living cultural traditions were properly considered. The Representative of ICOMOS stressed that for any cultural heritage impact assessment there must be cultural mapping. He acknowledged the existence of an impasse between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government and suggested that the same process as had been used for the review of scientific issues by the ISP of ICSU should be used for resolving the issue of cultural mapping. He suggested the establishment of an independent international group to consult with the Mirrar and the Australian government to find a way forward. The Delegate of Thailand cautioned against intervening in domestic affairs by establishing an independent international group to deal with cultural issues at Jabiluka. The Delegate of Hungary trusted that a solution could be found and made reference to the outstanding importance of the living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park and expressed his concern with the current situation reported to the Committee.

25

The Delegate of Australia expressed his concern about the breakdown in dialogue between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government. He however saw it as "an interruption" and "not termination" of the dialogue process. He informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage was ready to re-commence talks at any time. Explaining what could have been the cause of the interruption, he referred to the letter from Yvonne Margarula that referred to concern to allegations that financial incentives had been offered to the Mirrar People (see Annex XIV). He stressed that indeed at no time had such an offer been made by the Australian negotiators. The Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that he considered that the only commitment made by the Australian government to the Committee in July 1999 that had not been fully met was the development of a cultural heritage management plan and cultural mapping. He recalled that the Jabiluka mine was on stand-by and in environmental management mode and that commercial production would not take place for a considerable time reflecting the commitment to sequential mines. He stated that the mining company was legally obliged to provide a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and that the Australian government was concerned that a correct process for its preparation be found as soon as possible through a process of domestic negotiation. The Delegate of South Africa expressed her agreement with the independent review process proposed by ICOMOS and suggested use of a facilitator. She appealed to the Australian government to agree to a process involving an outside facilitator noting that Kakadu is a site of value to all humankind not just Australia. The Delegate of Finland suggested that a similar method of working to that which had been used to address scientific issues at Kakadu should be used to ensure progress on cultural heritage issues. The Delegate of Canada acknowledged the importance of the living cultural values of Kakadu and expressed the wish of Committee members to see their protection. If an agreement between the Mirrar and the State Party was not possible, then involvement of a third party should be considered. The Observer of Papua New Guinea stressed the importance of recognizing living cultural heritage values right at the beginning of the process of World Heritage identification and protection. ICCROM commented that while they had strongly supported the recommendation proposed by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau, particularly given its emphasis on process, they were concerned that "process" was being interpreted in different ways by different delegates, as "mediated dialogue" by South Africa, and as "study" or "scientific reference group" by ICOMOS and others. ICCROM felt that clarification of the implications

of reference to process was necessary for the consolidated recommendation being drafted to be fully effective in assisting the State Party. Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, was invited to address the Committee. She spoke about her country (her traditional lands) and of the sacred sites and "dangerous sites" (djang) at Jabiluka. She said that her country was "in danger" because the Government of Australia said that they were lying when they said the site was sacred and the Mirrar appealed for help from the World Heritage Committee. The Delegate of Australia said that the Minister for Environment and Heritage stressed that he did not believe the Mirrar were acting dishonestly. The Committee adopted the following decision on the protection of cultural values at Kakadu National Park:

The Committee, 11. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that

serious impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka still exist.

12. Considered that the Committee’s previous

decision regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.

13. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the

Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to “participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park”.

14. Noted that the State Party is prepared to consider

a new process to address any outstanding issues relating to cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.

15. Expressed disappointment about the current

interruption in dialogue between the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners.

16. Reaffirmed the importance of the living cultural

heritage of Kakadu National Park. 17. Encouraged the State Party and the Mirrar

Traditional Owners to resume and continue their efforts in a constructive dialogue, in order to develop together a process leading towards the protection of Kakadu’s cultural heritage.

26

18. In the event that the interruption in the dialogue continues, requested that the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners consider a facilitated dialogue to achieve an agreed-upon process by the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.

(iii) State of conservation reports of mixed properties

noted by the Committee Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China) Historic Sanctary of Machu Picchu (Peru) CULTURAL HERITAGE (i) Cultural property which the Committee inscribed

on the List of World Heritage in Danger VIII.30 Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore

(Pakistan) The World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Director-General of UNESCO had received a letter dated 27 November 2000 from the authorities of Pakistan requesting the World Heritage Committee to inscribe the Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in Danger. In the letter, the authorities of Pakistan informed the Director-General that the State Party recognised the urgent need to restore the damaged part of the outer walls and hydraulic works of Shalamar Gardens. Reiterating the great importance attached to activities for protecting the World Heritage sites located in Pakistan, the Director-General was assured that all necessary steps would be taken to ensure proper renovation and restoration of these unique gardens, which are not only an important cultural heritage landmark in the historic city of Lahore, but also a site visited by thousands of people. The authorities informed the Secretariat that the Department of Archaeology and Museums of the Ministry of Culture, and the local authorities concerned are actively co-operating to ensure that the gardens remain intact and do not suffer any further deterioration. Through this letter, the Government of Pakistan expressed its appreciation for continued assistance from the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the conservation and development of the Shalamar Gardens. By nominating the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the State Party expressed its hope to increase public awareness both nationally and internationally on the importance of preserving this Moghul exemplary site of World Heritage of value, which continues to be a living cultural heritage site. The Committee examined the state of conservation of Shalamar Gardens and the deliberations of the Bureau during the twenty-fourth extraordinary session, and took note of the request by the State Party to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee expressed serious concern over the complete loss of two of the three hydraulic works and the partial

demolition of the third hydraulic work. Recognising that the property is threatened by serious and specific danger, necessitating major operations to ensure the protection of these essential components of the historic monumental and garden complex within the property, the Committee decided to inscribe the Fort and Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in Danger. While appreciating the co-operation between the central and local authorities concerned to enhance the conservation of the Shalamar Gardens, the Committee requested the State Party:

�� to prohibit parking on the site of the first and

second tanks as soon as possible to prevent further damage to the archaeological remains;.

�� to fence off the site on which these remains are located from the immediate surrounding so that it is no longer directly accessible;

�� to consolidate the remaining foundations of the two tanks as an archaeological relic and take measures to prevent further deterioration of what still remains of the third tank with its brick arches, in order to safeguard the remains of the former hydraulic works;

�� to define and implement a “rescue programme” as soon as possible, as recommended by the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission (October 2000) in close co-operation with the World Heritage Centre;

The Committee requested the State Party to provide clarification concerning ownership, land use and the legal status of the land within 60 metres of these hydraulic works, particularly in view of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, applicable to this site. Finally, the Committee underlined that the damage to this property illustrates a case where world heritage values of a property had been severely undermined due to insufficient attention given to conservation needs in the planning and implementation of public works. VIII.31 Historic City of Zabid (Yemen) The Committee recalled the report on the state of conservation of the Historic City of Zabid, examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session that included information on the State Party's request to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS fully supported the findings and recommendations of the UNESCO monitoring mission undertaken in 1999 and the request by the State Party that the site be inscribed on the World Heritage in Danger in view of the serious condition of the historic buildings within the property. The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic City of Zabid on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and

27

ICOMOS to organize a mission composed of multidisciplinary experts in order to evaluate the situation and recommend further actions. (ii) State of conservation reports of cultural

properties examined by the Committee VIII.32 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) The Committee recalled that it had repeatedly expressed concern for this site and repeatedly deferred inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992. The Committee recalled that it had decided again to defer decision on in-danger listing at its twenty-third session, pending a report from a High Level Mission that the Committee decided to send to Kathmandu in 2000 for consultations with representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. This mission, headed by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri, would also transmit the Committee’s concerns and try to convince the Nepalese authorities of the merits of in-danger listing. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September 2000. The High Level Mission was well received by the State Party and met high level authorities including His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister of Nepal. The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented the conclusive findings and final considerations of the Report of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley (23-30 September 2000), WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.17. The Director informed the Committee that no new plans had been put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress the persistent and continued deterioration of the materials, structures, ornamental features, and overall architectural coherence in most Monument Zones. He drew the attention of the Committee to the state of conservation of the site, highlighting the fact that in general, publicly-owned historic monuments were in good condition, but the problem lay in the urban fabric within the Monument Zones. Thus, essential and authentic urban fabric had been severely altered to the point that in a number of Monument Zones, the changes were irreversible. The Committee was informed of the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to protect the seven Monument Zones composing the site. The Director reported that the authorities had emphasised the difficulties in imposing international standards in the conservation of privately-owned historic buildings without substantial subsidy and technical support. The Director informed the Committee, however, that the mission was unable to convince the representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal on the constructive aims of the system of in-danger listing, notably to mobilise the support of policy makers at the highest level and international donors. In light of this, the High Level Mission concluded that the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the vernacular architecture surrounding the public monuments, and consequently destroying the World Heritage values of this unique and universally significant site. The problem was compounded

by the lack of technical capacity and the population pressures giving rise to encroachment from the periphery to the Monument Zones. As a result of this, the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session, transmitted the recommendations presented in WHC-2000/CONF.204/4 to the Committee. The Committee examined the state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley and the discussion of the Bureau. The Committee also took note of the two information documents tabled on 27 November 2000, WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.21 (Updated progress report on the implementation of the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management of Kathmandu Valley and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures, submitted by His Majesty's Government of Nepal on 22 November 2000) and WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.22 (Conclusions of Mr. Henrik Lilius, Vice-President of the World Heritage Committee and ICOMOS Representative during the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley). The former Chairperson, Mr Abdelaziz Touri, who headed the High Level Mission, noted that the serious state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley had been examined at 20 sessions of the Committee and Bureau since 1992. The situation was indeed grave. However, he informed the Committee that the Bureau had formulated a recommendation for the Committee's consideration at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session, which allowed two more years for the Nepalese authorities to further implement the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Joint Mission's 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures adopted by the State Party. The Committee, recalling that it had deferred the inscription of Kathmandu Valley on the List of World Heritage in Danger numerous times, expressed its disappointment that the State Party was not convinced of the constructive objectives of the List of World Heritage in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further political commitment and mobilizing international technical co-operation and greater awareness at both national and international levels. During the ensuing debate, discussions focused on the objectives of the Convention and international co-operation. The Committee underlined the need to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List, while effectively implementing the mechanisms provided under the Convention and appropriately assisting States Parties in safeguarding the World Heritage properties, especially when both ascertained threats faced sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. Most members of the Committee agreed that it would be desirable to define procedures for examining cases such as Kathmandu Valley, where certain values or components justifying World Heritage inscription have been irreversibly lost. The question of whether or not consent by a State Party was necessary for inscribing a property on the List of

28

World Heritage in Danger was debated at length, especially in relation to the interpretation of Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the Convention. Some delegates and the Observer of Nepal felt that the Committee was not empowered to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the concerned State Party and without the request for assistance by the State Party. However, other members of the Committee and Observers stressed that Article 11.4 allowed the Committee to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned, although it was preferable to have the State Party's consent in advance. The Delegate of Belgium underlined the crucial importance of clarifying this point. Recalling the obligation of UNESCO to provide legal advice to Members of the Committee when requested, the Delegate of Belgium formally requested legal advice concerning this question on behalf of his Government. At the invitation of the Chairperson, the UNESCO Legal Adviser pointed out that this subject was quite controversial. It had most recently been debated at the Canterbury International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines where the experts had recommended that legal advice be sought on the matter. The Legal Adviser had been informed that certain States Parties in fact had obtained legal advice from eminent jurists on this question, and that these jurists apparently had provided legal opinions that were widely divergent. The Committee was reminded that the UNESCO Legal Adviser had no authority to provide any definitive interpretations of the terms of the Convention. Under international law it was only the States Parties as a whole who could make definitive interpretations of the terms of their Convention. In his view, there were various options available to the States Parties. They could:

a) exchange copies of the expert legal opinions which they had obtained or would obtain, with a view to reaching a consensus as to which legal arguments were the most persuasive,

b) agree to have the matter decided simply by a vote of the General Assembly of States Parties, or

c) agree to have the matter arbitrated by some competent legal body such as the World Court at the Hague.

The Legal Advisor concluded by indicating that while he was not in a position to give a spontaneous opinion on this matter without the benefit of appropriate research, especially on the relevant preparatory work preceding the adoption of the Convention, he remained at the disposal of the States Parties to provide, in due course, any further advice or opinions as may be considered useful.

The Delegate of Belgium, expressed regret that the UNESCO Legal Advisor would limit himself to

mentioning general principles concerning the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention. He requested that the UNESCO Legal Advisor would clearly declare whether, in his opinion, prior consent of the Government concerned is or is not necessary and that his advice would be transmitted to all States Parties to the Convention through the World Heritage Centre early enough for the question to be discussed during the forthcoming Meeting for the Revision of the Operational Guidelines to be organized by the Secretariat or at the next Bureau or Committee session. The Delegate of Belgium underlined that the advice and view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor could only be an interpretation and would not provide a definitive answer to the issue in question. Finally, the Delegate of Belgium stressed that should the view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor and those of international legal experts in various States Parties be divergent and States Parties do not reach an agreement on the interpretation of Article 11 of the Convention, this question must be submitted to the International Court of Justice of the Hague or arbitrated by another competent legal body. The Committee decided to consider the issue of the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in a broader context, in order to develop appropriate criteria and procedure for the Committee to evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To this end, the Committee accepted the offer by the Government of Morocco to host a meeting on this issue, and decided to consider developing a draft agenda and allocation of funds for the organisation of this meeting, within the context of the revision of the Operational Guidelines. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Nepal for the continued efforts to enhance the management and conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The Committee reiterated its deepest concern for the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in most of the seven Monument Zones composing the site have significantly threatened its integrity and authenticity. The Committee requested the State Party to produce a new structured framework for monitoring all corrective measures by the State Party, to be reviewed by the Committee within the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise in 2002. In the interim, the State Party was requested to submit a progress report for consideration by the Committee at its twenty-fifth session in 2001. The Committee further recommended that other States Parties be engaged in the conservation and monitoring effort by providing technical and financial assistance to the concerned authorities of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Committee decided to consider reserving an appropriation within the 2001 International Assistance budget, to finance specific time-bound activities related to the protection of the urban fabric within the World Heritage site. The Observer of Nepal expressed to the Committee his Government’s appreciation for the favourable response to

29

requests for technical and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO have been providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. He recalled the great pride of the Nepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed the Committee that they were unaware, until 1992, of the World Heritage conservation standards, hence the errors made. The Observer reiterated the Government’s strong commitment to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission, and requested that the Bureau provide the Government of Nepal sufficient time to redress the situation and defer decision on in-danger listing until 2004. The Committee finally decided to adopt the Bureau’s recommendations including the acceptance of the invitation extended by the Government of Morocco. VIII.33 Taxila (Pakistan) The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site, and adopted the following: The Committee noted the Reports submitted by the State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre concerning the state of conservation of the Taxila World Heritage site. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the authorities of Pakistan for taking the necessary measures to mitigate the threats caused by the construction of the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila. The Committee, while noting the efforts made by the State Party to strictly control illicit trafficking of sculptures illegally excavated from Buddhist archaeological remains, nevertheless reiterated its request to the State Party to continue strengthening the protection of unexcavated areas in Taxila. The Committee requested the Government of Pakistan to implement the recommendations formulated by ICOMOS following the October 2000 ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission. The Committee requested the State Party to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations, for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session in September 2001. Finally, in order to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in regularly monitoring the numerous and physically dispersed archaeological remains of the Taxila World Heritage site, the Committee expressed its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party, and requested the State Party to consider nominating the site for the List of World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee. VIII.34 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland) The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site and noted the information provided by the Secretariat and by the Under-Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim .

The Committee recalled that, at its twenty-third session (Kyoto, 1998), it confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the Declaration of March 1997; this process should continue in a consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the belief that no steps should be taken unless consensus had been reached. The Committee expressed its concern regarding the delay in implementing the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim and the work of the international group of experts. It urged the Polish authorities to address these issues without further delay. Concerning the construction projects within the zones related physically or symbolically to the Concentration Camp, the Committee requested the State Party to avoid any action that could compromise reaching consensus between the authorities, institutions and organizations involved and to ensure that the sacred nature of the site and its environment are preserved giving special attention to their integrity. The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party, previously made during its twenty-fourth session, to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and requested the State Party to submit this detailed report by 15 April 2001, at the latest, for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Secretariat to maintain close contacts with the State Party and other parties involved in order to support planning actions and the process for establishing a consensus as indicated in the decision adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session. In conclusion, the Committee reiterated the need for the establishment of a buffer zone to be created around the site, as well as a plan for the implementation of development control mechanisms within this newly identified area. It urged the Polish authorities to pay particular attention to this matter and to submit a report on the progress made in the identification of a buffer zone and control mechanism for examination by the twenty-fifth session of theBureau. The Observer of Israel underlined that the two former Concentration Camps -Auschwitz and Birkenau - approximately 3 kms from each other, are located in two different municipalities - Oswiecim and Birkenau - are managed under different jurisdictions, and that before the creation of a buffer zone, the two locations should be unified. He stressed that the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim was not the management plan but a plan developed by the town of Oswiecim and that this should be clarified. Furthemore, he declared that he had taken note of the comments from Zimbabwe, Finland and Greece (included in the Report of the Rapporteur). Finally, he underlined that coordination between the International Group of Experts, the State Party and ICOMOS was essential and should be reinforced. In

30

addition, due to the high sensitivity linked to this site, the Observer of Israel specified that representatives of the State Party and of the Jewish community should be involved in the work undertaken by the International Group of Experts. (iii) State of conservation reports of cultural

properties which the Committee noted VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil) Concerning the state of conservation report to be noted by the Committee, the Observer of Brazil stated that strict building regulations are being applied to all construction activities in Brasilia. Although the city is facing challenges due to the increase in population (3 million for a city originally designed for 500,000 inhabitants), which has led to some tension in the outskirts, the core of the city which forms the World Heritage site is intact and the World Heritage value is not adversely affected in any way by new developments. The Observer pointed out that the recommendation as adopted at the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau, did not reflect the situation on the site. Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China) The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China) VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt) The Delegate of Belgium recalled an intervention during the Committee's twenty-third session in Marrakesh in 1999, on the need to make the local population aware of the need to ensure the conservation of this site, and stated that this important issue should be taken into account. VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and

Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany) The Observer of Germany stressed that the vestiges of a water pipe and the wall of the ramparts in proximity to the Amphitheatre are important witnesses to the history of the town and the Roman civilization of the north of the Alps. However, he indicated that these vestiges are located inside a building for commercial use and that the problems linked to conservation, presentation and public access are not entirely resolved. The Minister of Culture of the Land Rhenanie-Palatinat has decided to provide the necessary funding to elaborate a project which aims at preserving the property without altering its authenticity. The Observer of Germany further indicated that the Minister intended to invite ICOMOS to carry out a mission before the twenty-fifth session of the Committee to examine these discoveries and the efforts made for their preservation. Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany) Classical Weimar (Germany) Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)

VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India) The Observer of India informed the Committee that her Government intended to provide an updated report on the state of conservation of Khajuraho Group of Monuments site to the World Heritage Centre. She informed the Committee that the authorities have ascertained that the unauthorized construction has taken place on privately owned land, near the western group of the Khajuraho Temple but not within the area of 100-meter boundary limits of the protected monuments. Nevertheless, the Archaeological Survey of India is taking the necessary legal measures to correct the illegal construction. Moreover, the authorities concerned are acquiring vacant areas surrounding the western group of temples in order to prevent further encroachment. Therefore, the Observer from India expressed her Government’s view that the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission in early 2001 may be premature and requested postponement. Sun Temple of Konarak (India) Petra (Jordan) Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic) Byblos (Lebanon) Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco) VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) The Observer of Israel made a statement regarding the situation in Mozambique after the Cyclone Eline and the present socio-economic conditions in the country. He underscored the importance of enhancing conservation strategies through capacity-building of the African States Parties, in particular offering training programmes which provided employment opportunities in conservation. He welcomed the views of the Delegate of Zimbabwe as reflected in the Bureau report, which emphasizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with the States Party's Ministry of Culture. Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal) Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama) Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru) VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras

(Philippines) The Observer of the Philippines underlined that monitoring of the fragile cultural landscape of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras required not only a GIS database but also a comprehensive management plan for ensuring its conservation and sustainable development. He informed the Committee that the Philippines National Mapping Authority was expected to complete its work in January 2001 for the GIS mapping project, supported by the World Heritage Fund. For this reason, the Observer expressed his Government’s appreciation for the Bureau’s decision requesting the World Heritage Centre to organize a reactive monitoring mission to the site in close co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN. Regarding the site’s tourism development plan requested by the Bureau, the

31

Committee was informed that the Government and the World Tourism Organization were co-operating to elaborate a National Tourism Master Plan which would integrate management plans for the conservation of all World Heritage properties in the Philippines as a priority concern. VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines

(Philippines) The Observer of the Philippines informed the Committee of the intention of the authorities to elaborate in January 2001, a Conservation Master Plan for the San Agustin Church of Intramuros Manila, in accordance with the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission recommendations. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the Philippines National Committee for Culture and the Arts had commenced consolidation of the façade of the San Agustin Church of Paoay to enhance protection against further earthquake damage, following the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission recommendations. VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal) The Observer of Portugal stated that, contrary to what was indicated in the Bureau Report, the "Monte da Lua" Agency was created to strengthen the integrated management of the site. VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey) The Observer of Turkey assured the Committee that all efforts were being made to complete the conservation plan of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul and the detailed plan of Fatih and Eminonu. The Observer confirmed the report of the Secretariat that the delay was caused by public hearings on the revised land use regulations. Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam) WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING VIII.44 The Committee recalled that in accordance with its request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre planned and organised, in consultation with the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), a technical meeting which analysed case studies on World Heritage and mining. This meeting was held at the IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland) from 21 to 23 September 2000 and reviewed practical case studies from the following sites: Lorentz National Park, Indonesia; Huascaran National Park, Peru; Doñana National Park, Spain; Camp Caiman Gold Project, French Guyana (adjacent to a Ramsar site); Kakadu National Park, Australia; and Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park, South Africa. VIII.45 The Committee noted the deliberations of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau on this matter included in working document WHC-2000/204/4.

VIII.46 The Observer of the United States stated that the discussions at the Bureau session on mining and World Heritage were helpful. This partially stems from the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) position statement on mining and World Heritage that had been discussed at past meetings of the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau. The Rapporteur's report of the twenty-fourth session cited IUCN's view "that this issue has been characterized by a lack of dialogue between conservation and mining interests". He agreed, and applauded IUCN, ICME and the Centre for holding a technical meeting in Gland (Switzerland), that included representatives of mining and conservation interests. He believed that there remained a need for more dialogue on this issue to resolve outstanding issues. As a result, he requested that the Centre and IUCN consider holding a follow-up workshop on this issue to build on the progress made at the Gland meeting. Finally, he informed the Committee that the US House of Representatives Committee on Resources held a hearing on this subject in October 1999. The report of this hearing is available at http:www.house.gov/resources, listed as document 106-80. VIII.47 The Delegate of Canada supported the comments by the United States of America and recommended that the proceedings of the workshop be published. Concerning the specific recommendations of the workshop, his country would see the preparation of guidelines on World Heritage and mining and the dissemination of the results of the workshop as a priority. The Delegate of Hungary noted that this issue is a breakthrough in terms of a strategic policy development and requested that progress made in this matter be brought back to the next Committee session and that possibly similar strategic issues, such as World Heritage and tourism be raised. VIII.48 In summing up the discussion, the Chairperson said that the Committee agreed to the establishment of a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining to carry forward the work in this important field. VIII.49 The Committee noted the recommendations of the report for transmission to the various key actors. The recommendations of the Workshop are contained in Annex XV. IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONAL

ACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY ACTION PLAN

IX.1 The Secretariat introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/11 describing the progress report on the implementation of regional actions as described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session (Kyoto, 1998). The Committee reviewed progress achieved in the year 2000, noting the regional Action Plans for 2001-2002 and approved specific activities to be executed during 2001. IX.2 The Delegate of Benin noted the importance of implementing the Global Strategy and linking it to issues

32

related to improving the representivity of the List. The Centre's efforts in Africa were commended. He informed the Committee that international co-operation activities offered by countries such as Norway and France have improved support to African States Parties and appealed for the expansion of such effective partnerships with other donor nations. He drew the attention of the Committee to the recommendations of the meeting held in Zimbabwe on authenticity within the African context (reference: WHC-2000/CONF.4/INF.11) and suggested that the list of recommendations of that meeting be widely circulated. He welcomed planned activities to improve awareness of the work of the Convention in States Parties and urged the Centre to aim for a balanced distribution of activities 2.2 - 2.8 of the Action Plan among the various sub-regions of Africa. IX.3 The Delegate of South Africa acknowledged the usefulness of Global Strategy activities in Africa and called for special attention to raise awareness for the protection of World Heritage of States Parties such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) suffering from war and armed conflict. She expressed the hope that peace would return to DRC soon and in the meantime urged the Centre to make efforts to raise awareness among decision-makers and the people as a whole so that they can understand the universal significance of these sites. She proposed that consideration be given to designating World Heritage sites in zones of conflict, such as those in the DRC, as 'peace parks' and efforts be made to link protection of these sites to peace-making efforts. IX.4 The Observer of Japan made reference to the Workshop on "Nature and Biodiversity as World Heritage", (page 12 of working document CONF.204/11), and expressed Japan's satisfaction with the successful conduct of that Workshop which was held in close co-operation with the Centre, IUCN and East and Southeast Asian States Parties, as well as with the participation of New Zealand. The Workshop had resulted in a "Strategic Statement on Natural World Heritage in East and Southeast Asia" describing practical measures to enhance the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and raising awareness of the role of the Convention in biodiversity conservation. He said that copies of the "Strategic Statement" and the proceedings of the Workshop could be made available to interested States Parties. He expressed Japan's continuing interest to collaborate with the Centre and IUCN to improve the implementation of the Convention and attain the objectives of the "Strategic Statement" in East and Southeast Asia. IX.5 Japan intends to host a thematic expert meeting on Asian Sacred Mountains as Cultural Landscapes at the Wakayama Prefecture from 4 to 12 September 2001 and hoped that the participation of representatives of less developed countries at the Workshop could be supported through international assistance from the World Heritage Fund.

IX.6 The Delegate of Greece pointed out that the document needed to set out priorities as well as emphasizing a selection of themes for meetings and workshops. She called for a better illustration of the links between the activities implemented as part of the Global Strategy Action Plan and the preparation of indicative lists and training activities. She noted that several workshops and seminars had been held, but a critical analysis and evaluation of such activities was lacking. IX.7 The Representative of IUCN highlighted the need to link the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and improving the representivity of the World Heritage List. He noted the importance of identifying critical gaps in the List and in that regard highlighted the work of the Centre and IUCN to undertake a global review of the application of the Convention in coastal and marine ecosystems. Currently, World Heritage sites in coastal and marine ecosystems are under-represented. To address that, there would be a workshop on marine World Heritage in 2001. The IUCN Representative also drew the attention to the World Parks Congress to be held in 2003 in Durban, South Africa. Referring to the comments of the Delegate of South Africa, he emphasized the significance of the links between the Global Strategy and periodic and reactive monitoring activities. IX.8 The Ambassador of France to UNESCO made a presentation of the France-UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for Protection of Monumental, Urban and Natural Heritage signed in 1997. This instrument of co-operation aims to support the implementation of the Convention, and in particular, includes provisions for preparatory assistance to assist under-represented States Parties to meet the conditions required for the nomination of sites. The co-operation therefore includes activities that strengthen legal protection, management and restoration of sites on the tentative lists as well as designated World Heritage sites, and support for improvement of documentation and training of personnel in less developed countries. A joint co-ordination and a technical committee facilitate the selection and implementation of activities and emphasis is on decentralised co-operation; i.e. co-operation between designated sites in less developed countries (e.g. Luang Prabang in Laos) and in France (e.g. Chinon), or co-operation between local authorities. Most projects are of a minimum 3-year duration and between 1997 and 1999, 17 projects have been launched in 26 countries including amongst others, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia in Latin America, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa and China and Laos in Asia. He invited other countries interested in participating in the co-operative programme to contact the French Delegation at UNESCO, Paris. IX.9 The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador of France for the information provided and noted that the French-UNESCO co-operative programme could serve as a model for similar efforts of other interested States Parties. He requested the Ambassador of France to transmit the Committee's thanks to the relevant French authorities.

33

IX.10 The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that following the "Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps" (Hallstatt, Austria, 18 to 22 June 2000) it wished to follow-up on the important issues related to the definition and protection of the Alpine Arc as a transborder territory with outstanding natural and cultural landscape values. To this end, a meeting is to be organized in spring 2001 in Turin, Italy. States Parties from the Alpine Arc, the Centre, the advisory bodies, local communities, NGOs, as well as other institutions and organizations involved were invited to attend.

IX.11 The Observer of Germany congratulated the Centre for the excellent and valuable work in the framework of the Global Strategy. Following the comments from Greece, he felt that the results are sometimes not well recognized by the national and local authorities and that a more comprehensive follow-up including publication and dissemination of results, would be needed. He requested that the Centre report back on this matter to the next Committee session.

X. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND

EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND WORLD HERITAGE LIST

Tentative Lists X.1 The Chairperson indicated that all the cultural nominations for inscription are included in the tentative lists of the countries concerned. X.2 The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had received in the year 2000 six new tentative lists from Australia, Israel, Malawi, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine. It also had received a letter from the Arab League

Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) dated 24 November 2000 transmitting the Declaration of the meeting of Arab Ministers of Cultural Affairs held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 21 to 22 November 2000 concerning the Tentative List of Israel (see Annex XVI to this Report). X.3 Both the Observer of Palestine and the Observer of Israel presented statements that are attached as Annexes XVII and XVIII. Changes to names of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List Following the request from the States Parties concerned, the Committee approved changes to the names of the following properties included on the World Heritage List:

Canada Existing Name Name change requested Anthony Island / Ile Anthony

SGaang Gwaii (Anthony Island) / SGaang Gwaii (Île Anthony)

Parcs des Rocheuses canadiennes Parcs des montagnes Rocheuses canadiennes Parc provincial des Dinosaures Parc provincial Dinosaur Parc national du Gros Morne Parc national du Gros-Morne Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex / Secteur du précipice à bisons "Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex"

Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump / Le précipice à bisons Head-Smashed-In

L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park / Parc national historique de l'Anse aux Meadows

L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site / Lieu historique national de L’Anse aux Meadows

Lunenburg Old Town / Vieille ville de Lunenburg

Old Town Lunenburg / Le Vieux Lunenburg

Quebec (Historic area) Historic District of Québec Parc national de Wood Buffalo Parc national Wood Buffalo

Canada and the United States of America: Tatshenshini-Alsek/Kluane National Park/Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Reserve and Glacier Bay National Park / Tatshenshini-Alsek, Parc national de Kluane, Parc national et Réserve de Wrangell-St-Elias, et Parc national de la baie des Glaciers

Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek

Glacier Waterton Parc international de la paix Parc international de la paix Waterton-Glacier

34

Germany: Existing Name Name change requested Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier

Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St. Peter and Church of our Lady in Trier

List of World Heritage in Danger X.4 Following the review of the state of conservation reports and at the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to inscribe the following natural cultural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger: �� Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan) �� Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) �� Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)

X.5 The Committee did not recommend the deletion of any properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the World Heritage List X.6 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the following sites have been withdrawn: National Park of Abruzzo (Italy) and Lena River Delta (Russian Federation). X.7 The Committee noted that concerning the sites of Fernando de Noronha Marine National Park (Brazil), Ancient Pula with the Amphitheatre (Croatia) and The Cape Floristic Region - Phase 1: Cape Peninsula Protected Natural Environment (South Africa), the respective States Parties have requested postponement. A. NATURAL HERITAGE A.1 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage

List

Property Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural Parks Id. N° 966 State Party Argentina Criteria N (i)

The Committee inscribed Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural Parks on the World Heritage List under natural criterion (i). Criterion (i). The site contains a complete sequence of fossiliferous continental sediments representing the entire Triassic Period (45 million years) of geological history. No other place in the world has a fossil record comparable to that of Ischigualasto-Talampaya which reveals the evolution of vertebrate life and the nature of palaeoenvironments in the Triassic Period.

IUCN noted that existing pressures on the site are low, that the site is effectively managed and that a positive response was received from the State Party concerning a co-operative management plan. A number of delegates, in supporting the nomination, highlighted the uniqueness of the site covering the whole Triassic period. The Observer of Argentina thanked the Committee for the decision, which will strengthen the protection of natural areas in his country. He informed the Committee that the two areas are now well integrated and that a joint management plan is in place since 2 October 2000. He also agreed to a name change from Ischigualasto Provincial Park and Talampaya National Park to Ischigualasto/ Talampaya Natural Parks as suggested by some delegates who felt the name was complicated.

Property Greater Blue Mountains Area Id. N° 917 State Party Australia Criteria N (ii), (iv)

Recalling the history of the nomination, IUCN informed the Committee that the Bureau at its twenty-third session had recommended deferral for the natural part of this originally mixed nomination inviting the Australian authorities to consider the possibility of a serial nomination to cover the full range of values of eucalyptus ecosystems. The Bureau had noted that although the area was nationally important, it was not considered on its own to be a significant representation of eucalyptus-dominated vegetation on a global scale. There were also unresolved integrity questions. The Bureau at the time also did not recommend inscription for its cultural values. IUCN informed the Committee that a thorough evaluation of the additional material subsequently presented by Australia took place. The additional material did not address the question of a serial nomination to cover the full range of values of eucalyptus ecosystems. IUCN also noted that, while the information provided by the State Party had verified the international significance of eucalypt dominated vegetation, the areas to be included in a serial site were not identified and recommended again to defer the site. Now that the issue was before the Committee to decide, IUCN's advice was to defer the nomination, as recommended by the Bureau in 1999 in favour of a possible serial site and reminded the Committee of Operational Guidelines, Paragraph 19

35

dealing with serial sites. IUCN noted however, that this was a finely balanced case and if the Committee wished to inscribe the site, it would suggest that criterion (ii) would be a potential one. He also referred to proposed national legislation where the identification of eucalypt heritage sites could go some way to meeting IUCN's suggestion of a serial site. Possible sites could include areas in Southwest Australia and the Australian Alps, although integrity problems may need to be addressed. The Committee discussed the issues raised by IUCN at length and supported the nomination, in particular highlighting the need to recognize eucalyptus ecosystems on a global scale. Committee members also pointed out the uniqueness of the site in relation to the recently discovered Wollemi Pine and the increase in the representation of eucalypts on the World Heritage List. They emphasised Australia's responsibility in protecting eucalypts in their original ecosystems. The Committee also considered adding criterion (iv). The Committee inscribed the Greater Blue Mountains Area under natural criteria (ii) and (iv). Criteria (ii) and (iv): Australia’s eucalypt vegetation is worthy of recognition as of outstanding universal value, because of its adaptability and evolution in post-Gondwana isolation. The site contains a wide and balanced representation of eucalypt habitats from wet and dry sclerophyll, mallee heathlands, as well as localised swamps, wetlands, and grassland. 90 eucalypt taxa (13% of the global total) and representation of all four groups of eucalypts occur. There is also a high level of endemism with 114 endemic taxa found in the area as well as 120 nationally rare and threatened plant taxa. The site hosts several evolutionary relic species (Wollemia, Microstrobos, Acrophyllum) which have persisted in highly restricted microsites. The Delegate of Australia thanked the Committee and IUCN for the constructive process and informed the Committee that the world's most eminent experts on biodiversity and eucalypts have stated the outstanding universal value of the Blue Mountains. Whilst the Greater Blue Mountains has been inscribed as a stand-alone site, Australia recognises that there may be other important key sites of outstanding significance representing the evolution of the eucalyptus. He informed the Committee that the Australian Government is shortly to introduce legislation to allow listing of places of national heritage significance. These places will be protected to the same level under Commonwealth law currently provided to World Heritage sites. The national list will be compiled according to themes representing the natural, cultural and historic environment. Whilst any particular site can only be listed following a public assessment and consultation process, it is expected that the identification of places representing the evolution of the eucalyptus would be an appropriate

early theme for assessment, complementing the inscription of the Blue Mountains on the World Heritage List.

Property Noel Kempff Mercado National Park Id. N° 967 State Party Bolivia Criteria N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Noel Kempff Mercado National Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv). Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site contains an array of habitat types including evergreen rainforests, palm forests, cerrado, swamps, savannahs, gallery forests, and semi-deciduous dry forests. The cerrado habitats found on the Huanchaca Meseta have been isolated for millions of years providing an ideal living laboratory for the study of the evolution of these ecosystems. The site also contains a high diversity of plant and animal species, including viable populations of many globally threatened large vertebrates.

Property Jaú National Park Id. N° 998 State Party Brazil Criteria N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Jaú National Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv). Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site protects a large and representative example of the Amazon Central Plain Forest including the entire hydrological basin of the Jaú River. The site is important for biodiversity, protecting a large portion of the biodiversity associated with the Blackwater River system – one of the three types of lymnological systems associated with the Amazon basin. The site has a sufficient size to allow the maintenance of significant on-going ecological and biological processes, such as blow downs, changes in the river flood dynamics and natural burns, thus providing unique opportunities to study their effect on biodiversity in natural ecosystems. The Observer of Brazil informed the Committee that his Government is committed to the protection of the Amazon system.

Property Pantanal Conservation Area Id. N° 999 State Party Brazil Criteria N (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Pantanal Conservation Complex on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).

36

Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv): The site is representative of the Greater Pantanal region. It demonstrates the on-going ecological and biological processes that occur in the Pantanal. The association of the Amolar Mountains with the dominant freshwater wetland ecosystems confers to the site a uniquely important ecological gradient as well as a dramatic landscape. The site plays a key role in the dispersion of nutrients to the entire basin and is the most important reserve for maintaining fish stocks in the Pantanal. The area preserves habitats representative of the Pantanal that contain a number of globally threatened species. The area is a refuge for fauna as it is the only area of the Pantanal that remains partially inundated during the dry season. The Committee discussed a number of potential threats to the site, including extraction of minerals and the use of mercury to extract gold from the soils. IUCN pointed out that although there are threats in the Panatanal ecosystem, the nominated site is located upstream from them and studies confirmed that there are no pollution-related impacts. The Committee decided to change the name from Pantanal Conservation Complex to Pantanal Conservation Area. The Observer of Brazil concurred with this and assured the Committee that his Government is committed to the protection of this unique area, part of a larger recently designated UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

Property Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands) Id. N° 908 State Party Italy Criteria N (i)

The Committee inscribed the Aeolian Islands on the World Heritage List under natural criterion (i). Criterion (i): The volcanic landforms of the site represent classic features in the continuing study of volcanology worldwide. With their scientific study from at least the 18th Century, the islands have provided two of the types of eruptions (Vulcanian and Strombolian) to vulcanology and geology textbooks and so have featured prominently in the education of all geoscientists for over 200 years. They continue to provide a rich field for volcanological studies of on-going geological processes in the development of landforms. The Committee noted that the State Party has adequately responded to the issues raised at its twenty-third session and commended the State Party for further strengthening the nomination by simplifying the boundaries of the nominated area, creating a clear surrounding buffer zone and a co-ordinated management structure. A number of delegates supported the nomination and emhasized that the site is a textbook example of the world's volcanology.

The Delegate of Italy stated that his authorities were happy to comply with all requests by Committee and that they were ready to cooperate with IUCN in the implementation of the management plan for the site.

Property Kinabalu Park Id. N° 1012 State Party Malaysia Criteria N(ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Kinabalu Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv). Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site has a diverse biota and high endemism. The altitudinal and climatic gradient from tropical forest to alpine conditions combine with precipitous topography, diverse geology and frequent climate oscillations to provide conditions ideal for the development of new species. The Park contains high biodiversity with representatives from more than half the families of all flowering plants. The majority of Borneo’s mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates (many threatened and vulnerable) occur in the Park. IUCN noted that on request from the Bureau, the State Party has provided the information requested concerning land-use impacts near the boundaries of the Park. In supporting the nomination, a number of delegates pointed out that the authorities have successfully tackled the Bureau's request and that the site is clearly of outstanding universal value for its high biodiversity. The Observer of Malaysia informed the Committee about the importance of the cultural and natural heritage in her country.

Property Gunung Mulu National Park Id. N° 1013 State Party Malaysia Criteria N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Gunung Mulu National Park under natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv): The concentration of caves in Mulu's Melinau Formation with its geomorphic and structural characteristics is an outstanding feature which allows a greater understanding of Earth's history. The caves of Mulu are important for their classic features of underground geomorphology, demonstrating an evolutionary history of more than 1.5 million years. One of the world's finest examples of the collapse process in Karstic terrain can be also found. GMNP provides outstanding scientific opportunities to study theories on the origins of cave faunas. With its deeply-incised canyons, wild rivers, rainforest-covered mountains, spectacular limestone pinnacles, cave passages and decorations, Mulu has outstanding scenic values. GMNP also provides

37

significant natural habitat for a wide range of plant and animal diversity both above and below ground. It is botanically-rich in species and high in endemism, including one of the richest sites in the world for palm species. IUCN also noted the positive response received from the authorities received concerning a number of issues raised at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau and proposed that the authorities be encouraged to review the additions to the site for their World Heritage potential when the gazetting process is completed. The Observer of Malaysia stressed the commitment of the authorities to preserve the site.

Property Central Suriname Nature Reserve Id. N° 1017 State Party Suriname Criteria N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Central Suriname Nature Reserve under natural criteria (ii) and (iv). Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site encompasses significant vertical relief, topography and soil conditions that have resulted in a variety of ecosystems. This ecosystem variation allows organisms within these ecosystems to move in response to disturbance, adapt to change and maintain gene flow between populations. The site’s size, undisturbed state (in general a rare condition in Amazonian forest parks) and protection of the entire Coppename watershed, will allow long-term functioning of the ecosystem. The site contains a high diversity of plant and animal species, many of which are endemic to the Guyana Shield and are globally threatened. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his concern about potential threats from gold mining and impacts to the integrity of the site. IUCN noted that the site is a pristine area, that the first phase of the management planning has been completed and that a US$ 18 million trust fund to support protection of the site was established, which could serve as a model for other sites. This Chairperson informed the Committee that the site is Suriname's first inscription on the World Heritage List.

Property The High Coast Id. N° 898 State Party Sweden Criteria N (i)

The Committee inscribed The High Coast under natural criterion (i). Criterion (i): The site is one of the places in the world that is experiencing isostatic uplift as a result of deglaciation. Isostatic rebound is well-illustrated and the

distinctiveness of the site is the extent of the total isostatic uplift which, at 294m, exceeds others. The site is the “type area” for research on isostacy, the phenomenon having been first recognised and studied there. A number of Committee members supported the nomination. The Committee, however, discussed a number of issues relating to the integrity of the site. In light of the evolving management regime, the Committee requested a review of the effectiveness of the management of this site in two year's time. The Delegate of Finland informed the Committee that the evaluation of the site was beneficial for the preparation of the proposed Kvarken World Heritage nomination. In supporting the enlistment, the Delegate of Morocco highlighted the fact that The High Coast was very significant because, apart from Hudson Bay in Canada, it was the most important example of glacio-isostatic uplift and the only icecap and geological feature in the north. The Observer of Sweden informed the Committee that the designation of this property is of great importance and thanked the Committee for the constructive review process requiring the production of additional studies. This material will be beneficial for the management of the area. A.2 Inclusion of an additional criterion to a

property inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property Ha Long Bay (renomination) Id. N° 672 bis State Party Viet Nam Criteria N (i) (iii)

The Committee inscribed Ha Long Bay under natural criterion (i) in addition to the site’s existing 1994 listing under criterion (iii). Criterion (i): The site is the most extensive and best known example of marine invaded tower karst and one of the most important areas of fengcong and fenglin karst in the world. The size of the area provides sufficient integrity for these large scale geomorphic processes to operate unhindered. The nomination under criterion (i) was supported by a number of Committee members, who wondered why this criterion was not taken into account originally. The Delegate of Hungary also noted the environmental impact assessment referred to under the item "state of conservation of properties" discussed during the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.

38

A.3 Extension of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property Plitvice Lakes National Park Id. N° 98 bis State Party Croatia Criteria

The Committee approved the extension of Plitvice Lakes National Park site by the nominated area of 10,020 ha as this would contribute to the integrity of the site.

Property Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst

Id. N° 725-858 bis State Party Hungary / Slovakia Criteria

The Committee approved the incorporation of the Dobšinská Ice Cave as part of the Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst World Heritage site. Although this ice cave is a relatively small (6km2) and specialised feature, it does add variety to the existing site and its features relate to and complement the Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst. The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the extension and the Observer of Slovakia informed the Committee that an intergovernmental agreement between the two States Parties was established in 1999 for joint projects including research, protection and monitoring. A.4 Natural property which was not inscribed on

the World Heritage List

Property Kopacki rit Id. N° 964 State Party Croatia Criteria

The Committee noted that Kopacki rit is an important site at the European scale and very significant within the Danube Basin as a whole. Nonetheless, it does not meet the criteria set by the World Heritage Convention and a number of important integrity questions remain unresolved. The Committee decided not to inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

B. MIXED PROPERTY B.1 Mixed Property inscribed on the World

Heritage List

Property uKhahlamba/ Drakensberg Park Id. N° 985 State Party South Africa Criteria N(iii) (iv) C (i) (iii)

The Committee inscribed uKhahlamba/Drakensberg Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (iii) and (iv) and cultural criteria (i) and (iii): Natural criteria (iii) and (iv): The site has exceptional natural beauty with soaring basaltic buttresses, incisive dramatic cutbacks and golden sandstone ramparts. Rolling high altitude grasslands, the pristine steep-sided river valleys and rocky gorges also contribute to the beauty of the site. The site’s diversity of habitats protects a high level of endemic and globally threatened species, especially of birds and plants. Cultural criteria (i) and (iii): Criterion (i): The rock art of the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg is the largest and most concentrated group of rock paintings in Africa, south of the Sahara and is outstanding both in quality and diversity of subject.

Criterion (iii): The San people lived in the mountainous uKhahlamba/Drakensberg area for more than four millennia, leaving behind them a corpus of outstanding rock art which throws much light on their way of life and their beliefs. A number of delegates supported the nomination, which enhances the diversity of African biogeographical provinces represented on the World Heritage List, with this site being an example of the Mediterranean biome. The Committee furthermore encouraged the State Party to work on an integrated management plan, including the management of fire and invasive species as well as visitor management. The Delegate of South Africa informed the Committee of the importance of Izintaba zoKhahlamba in her country and that the authorities are addressing a number of issues raised by the Committee. She hoped that with bilateral and international assistance the integrated management plan could be accomplished.

39

C. CULTURAL HERITAGE C.1 Properties that the Committee inscribed on the

World Heritage List

Property Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba Id. N° 995 State Party Argentina Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii) The Jesuit buildings and ensembles of Córdoba and the estancias are exceptional examples of the fusion of European and indigenous values and cultures during a seminal period in South America. Criterion (iv) The religious, social, and economic experiment carried out in South America for over 150 years by the Society of Jesus produced a unique form of material expression, which is illustrated by the Jesuit buildings and ensembles of Córdoba and the estancias.

The Delegate of Mexico noted the influence of the Jesuit Order on the American continent and highlighted the fact that the property was representative of an extensive agricultural system founded by religious orders.

Property The Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley

Id. N° 960 State Party Armenia Criteria C (ii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii):

Criterion (ii): The Monastery of Geghard, with its remarkable rock-cut churches and tombs, is an exceptionally well preserved and complete example of medieval Armenian monastic architecture and decorative art, with many innovatory features which had a profound influence on subsequent developments in the region.

The Delegate of Italy stressed that this site is integrated in a programme of cultural routes initiated by the Council of Europe and Italy.

Property The Cathedral and Churches of

Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots

Id. N° 1011 State Party Armenia Criteria C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii): The developments in ecclesiastical architecture represented in an outstanding manner by the Churches at Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots had a profound influence on church design over a wide region.

Criterion (iii): The Churches at Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots vividly depict both the spirituality and the innovatory artistic achievement of the Armenian Church from its foundation.

Property The Wachau Cultural Landscape Id. N° 970 State Party Austria Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Wachau is an outstanding example of a riverine landscape bordered by mountains in which material evidence of its long historical evolution has survived to a remarkable degree. Criterion (iv): The architecture, the human settlements, and the agricultural use of the land in the Wachau vividly illustrate a basically medieval landscape that has evolved organically and harmoniously over time.

Several members of the Committee expressed their appreciation for this nomination including the Delegate of Canada who underlined the importance of the coordinating commission for the management of the site. She also inquired whether the new boundaries of the site protected its viewscape; this question was answered positively by ICOMOS.

Property The Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower

Id. N° 958 State Party Azerbaijan Criteria C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

40

Criterion (iv): The Walled City of Baku represents an outstanding and rare example of a historic urban ensemble and architecture with influence from Zoroastrian, Sassanian, Arabic, Persian, Shirvani, Ottoman, and Russian cultures.

In response to several Delegates, expressing concern about the authenticity and coherence of the management policy of the site, ICOMOS underlined that the Walled City of Baku was the best preserved city of this region and that the inscription on the World Heritage List enhances the protection of the site. This statement was endorsed by several delegates. The Committee agreed to enlist the property but indicated that its concerns should be brought to the attention of the State Party.

Property The Mir Castle Complex Id. N° 625 State Party Belarus Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criterion (ii): Mir Castle is an exceptional example of a central European castle, reflecting in its design and layout successive cultural influences (Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque) that blend harmoniously to create an impressive monument to the history of this region. Criterion (iv): The region in which Mir Castle stands has a long history of political and cultural confrontation and coalescence, which is graphically reflected in the form and appearance of the ensemble.

Property The Historic Centre of Brugge Id. N° 996 State Party Belgium Criteria C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Historic Town of Brugge is testimony, over a long period, of a considerable exchange of influences on the development of architecture, particularly in brick Gothic, as well as favouring innovative artistic influences in the development of medieval painting, being the birthplace of the school of the Flemish Primitives.

Criterion (iv): The Historic Town of Brugge is an outstanding example of an architectural ensemble, illustrating significant stages in the commercial and cultural fields in medieval Europe, of which the public, social, and religious institutions are a living testimony.

Criterion (vi): The Town of Brugge was birthplace of the Flemish Primitives and a centre of patronage and development of painting in the Middle Ages with artists such as Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling.

The Delegates of Thailand and Mexico questioned the application of criterion (vi) for this site. ICOMOS justified the criteria on the basis that the city had sponsored the development of Flemish primitive art and was home to artists. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his reservation on the use of criterion (vi).

Property The Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels)

Id. N° 1005 State Party Belgium Criteria C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels are works of human creative genius, representing the highest expression of the influential Art Nouveau style in art and architecture. Criterion (ii): The appearance of Art Nouveau in the closing years of the 19th century marked a decisive stage in the evolution of architecture, making possible subsequent developments, and the Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels bear exceptional witness to its radical new approach. Criterion (iv): The Town Houses of Victor Horta are outstanding examples of Art Nouveau architecture, brilliantly illustrating the transition from the 19th to the 20th century in art, thought, and society.

Further to a question raised by several delegates concerning the protection of the town houses, Belgium underlined that town planning provisions already exists and that the protection goes beyond the requirements of the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS confirmed protection measures in place in particular the series of bufferzones.

Property The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons)

Id. N° 1006 State Party Belgium Criteria C (i) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (iii) and (iv):

41

Criterion (i): The Neolithic flint mines at Spiennes provide exceptional testimony to early human inventiveness and application. Criterion (iii): The arrival of the Neolithic cultures marked a major milestone in human cultural and technological development, which is vividly illustrated by the vast complex of ancient flint mines at Spiennes. Criterion (iv): The flint mines at Spiennes are outstanding examples of the Neolithic mining of flint, which marked a seminal stage of human technological and cultural progress.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Archaeological Site of the Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes, Mons to The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons).

Property Notre-Dame Cathedral in Tournai Id. N° 1009 State Party Belgium Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Tournai bears witness to a considerable exchange of influence between the architecture of the Ile de France, the Rhineland, and Normandy during the short period at the beginning of the 12th century that preceded the flowering of Gothic architecture. Criterion (iv): In its imposing dimensions, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Tournai is an outstanding example of the great edifices of the school of the north of the Seine, precursors of the vastness of the Gothic cathedrals.

Property Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture

Id. N° 567rev State Party Bolivia Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The ruins of Tiwanaku bear striking witness to the power of the empire that played a leading role in the development of the Andean prehispanic civilization. Criterion (iv) The buildings of Tiwanaku are exceptional examples of the ceremonial and public architecture and art of one of the most important manifestations of the civilizations of the Andean region.

Several States Parties raised the issue of the authenticity of the site as noted in the ICOMOS report. The Advisory Body remarked that the restorations made in Tiwanaku were not of recent date and that scientific knowledge available today would permit more careful interventions. The Delegate of Cuba stressed the universal significance of the site as an icon of a larger pre-columbian culture.

Property Churches of Chiloé Id. N° 971 State Party Chile Criteria C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii) The Churches of Chiloé are outstanding examples of the successful fusion of European and indigenous cultural traditions to produce a unique form of wooden architecture. Criterion (iii) The mestizo culture resulting from Jesuit missionary activities in the 17th and 18th centuries has survived intact in the Chiloé archipelago, and achieves its highest expression in the outstanding wooden churches.

A number of delegates took the floor to express their support for the nomination citing the churches as emblematic of the architecture of the archipelago and as embodiment of Jesuit ideals. The need to protect the vernacular architecture surrounding the churches was also stressed. Ecuador noted that tourism numbers might rise with the construction of a planned bridge that connects the area to the mainland making additional protection necessary. Finland suggested that sub-numeration of properties including distinct monuments, would give a better idea of the number of monuments actually inscribed on the World Heritage List. Italy and South Africa both indicated that they felt sub-numeration would detract from the unity of the site, and that the churches should be seen as an ensemble within their setting and not be subdivided.

Property Mount Qingcheng and the Dujiangyan Irrigation System China

Id. N° 1001 State Party China Criteria C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii),(iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Dujiangyan Irrigation System, begun in the 2nd century BCE, is a major landmark in the development of water management and technology, and is still discharging its functions perfectly.

42

Criterion (iv): The immense advances in science and technology achieved in ancient China are graphically illustrated by the Dujiangyan Irrigation System. Criterion (vi): The Temples of Mount Qingcheng are closely associated with the foundation of Taoism, one of the most influential religions of East Asia over a long period of history.

The Delegate of Hungary recommended the application of cultural criterion (v) for this site as it is an outstanding example of traditional land-use marked by the irrigation system which is representative of a culture. ICOMOS was requested to examine this point, particularly for sites in Asia, but it maintained that in this case, the site's outstanding universal value could not be justified on the basis of cultural criterion (v). The Committee discussed the question of inscription under natural criteria, a proposal for the construction of a dam by the water conservancy project and the issue of sacred mountains in China. The Committee noted that Mt Qingcheng is considered to meet natural criteria (ii) and (iv). However, it decided to defer the nomination under natural criteria and requested that IUCN and the World Heritage Centre clarify with the State Party the following matters relating to the integrity of the site: the management regime in the buffer zone; the completion of the Overall Plan for the management of Longxi-Hongkou Nature Reserve, and a commitment to its early implementation; the inclusion within the plan of arrangements to deal with long term funding, the development of adequate trained staff, satisfactory controls over tourism development and activities, and programmes for monitoring, research, education and public awareness and information on the water conservancy project and the possible impacts of the dam proposal. The Delegate of China explained that the proposal for a new dam was only a proposition at this stage and the authorities were willing to invite foreign experts to inspect the site. The Committee encouraged the State Party to consider: (a) the merits of enlarging the site to include other Giant Panda areas, such as Wolong Nature Reserve, physically linked to the site; (b) initiating a wider review of the potential which exists in China for other natural World Heritage sites with consideration for a workshop focusing on possible boundaries for an enlarged site as well as to identify other sites of biodiversity value in the region. The Chairperson also recalled that a workshop on sacred mountains in Asia will be hosted by the Japanese Government.

Property Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui -

Xidi and Hongcun Id. N° 1002 State Party China Criteria C (iii) (iv) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv), and (v):

Criterion (iii): The villages of Xidi and Hongcun are graphic illustrations of a type of human settlement created during a feudal period and based on a prosperous trading economy. Criterion (iv): In their buildings and their street patterns, the two villages of southern Anhui reflect the socio-economic structure of a long-lived settled period of Chinese history. Criterion (v): The traditional non-urban settlements of China, which have to a very large extent disappeared during the past century, are exceptionally well preserved in the villages of Xidi and Hongcun.

The Committee recommended that the State Party consider nominating other historic villages in Southern Anhui to extend the site.

Property Longmen Grottoes Id. N° 1003 State Party China Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):

Criterion (i): The sculptures of the Longmen Grottoes are an outstanding manifestation of human artistic creativity.

Criterion (ii): The Longmen Grottoes illustrate the perfection of a long-established art form that was to play a highly significant role in the cultural evolution of this region of Asia. Criterion (iii): The high cultural level and sophisticated society of Tang Dynasty China are encapsulated in the exceptional stone carvings of the Longmen Grottoes.

43

Property Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing

Dynasties Id. N° 1004 State Party China Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (i): The harmonious integration of remarkable architectural groups in a natural environment chosen to meet the criteria of geomancy (Fengshui) makes the Ming and Qing Imperial Tombs masterpieces of human creative genius. Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv): The imperial mausolea are outstanding testimony to a cultural and architectural tradition that for over five hundred years dominated this part of the world; by reason of their integration into the natural environment, they make up a unique ensemble of cultural landscapes. Criterion (vi): The Ming and Qing Tombs are dazzling illustrations of the beliefs, world view, and geomantic theories of Fengshui prevalent in feudal China. They have served as burial edifices for illustrious personages and as the theatre for major events that have marked the history of China.

The Committee took note, with appreciation, of the State Party’s intention to nominate the Mingshaoling Mausoleum at Nanjing (Jiangsu Province) and the Changping complex in the future as an extention to the Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing dynasties.

Property The Cathedral of St James in Šibenik Id. N° 963 State Party Croatia Criteria C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property be on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The structural characteristics of the Cathedral of St James in Šibenik make it a unique and outstanding building in which Gothic and Renaissance forms have been successfully blended. Criterion (ii): The Cathedral of St James is the fruitful outcome of considerable interchanges of influences between the three culturally different regions of Northern Italy, Dalmatia, and Tuscany in the 15th and 16th centuries. These interchanges created the conditions for unique and outstanding solutions to the technical and structural problems of constructing the cathedral vaulting and dome.

Criterion (iv): The Cathedral of St James in Šibenik is a unique testimony to the transition from the Gothic to the Renaissance period in church architecture.

Property Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the Southeast of Cuba

Id. N° 1008 State Party Cuba Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The remains of the 19th and early 20th century coffee plantations in eastern Cuba are unique and eloquent testimony to a form of agricultural exploitation of virgin forest, the traces of which have disappeared elsewhere in the world. Criterion (iv) The production of coffee in eastern Cuba during the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in the creation of a unique cultural landscape, illustrating a significant stage in the development of this form of agriculture.

In support of the nomination some delegates mentioned the significance of the nomination as the first of its kind and drew attention to the slave trade on which these plantations were founded.

Property The Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc Id. N° 859 Rev State Party Czech Republic Criteria C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The Olomouc Holy Trinity Column is one of the most exceptional examples of the apogee of central European Baroque artistic expression. Criterion (iv): The Holy Trinity Column constituted a unique material demonstration of religious faith in central Europe during the Baroque period, and the Olomouc example represents its most outstanding expression.

The Delegate of Greece expressed some reservations regarding the application of criterion (i) for this site.

44

Property Kronborg Castle Id. N° 696 Rev State Party Denmark Criteria C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): Kronborg Castle is an outstanding example of the Renaissance castle, and one that played a highly significant role in the history of this region of northern Europe.

Property The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

Id. N° 933 State Party France Criteria C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Loire Valley is an outstanding cultural landscape along a major river which bears witness to an interchange of human values and to a harmonious development of interactions between human beings and their environment over two millennia.

Criterion (iv): The landscape of the Loire Valley, and more particularly its many cultural monuments, illustrate to an exceptional degree the ideals of the Renaissance and the Age of the Enlightenment on western European thought and design.

Chambord has been inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (i) alone. The revised State Party nomination incorporated this property into the cultural landscape of the Loire Valley. The Committee decided that criterion (i) is also applicable to this new inscription.

Criterion (i): The Loire Valley is noteworthy for the quality of its architectural heritage, in its historic towns such as Blois, Chinon, Orléans, Saumur, and Tours, but in particular in its world-famous castles, such as the Château de Chambord.

Members of the Committee commended the State Party for taking into account the recommendations of the Bureau.

Property The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz

Id. N° 534 Rev State Party Germany Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an outstanding example of the application of the philosophical principles of the Age of the Enlightenment to the design of a landscape that integrates art, education, and economy in a harmonious whole. Criterion (iv): The 18th century was a seminal period for landscape design, of which the Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an exceptional and wide-ranging illustration.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz (The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz, cultural landscape of Dessau-Wörlitz) to The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz.

Property The Monastic Island of Reichenau Id. N° 974 State Party Germany Criteria C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (iii): The remains of the Reichenau foundation bear outstanding witness to the religious and cultural role of a great Benedictine monastery in the early Middle Ages. Criterion (iv): The churches on the island of Reichenau retain remarkable elements of several stages of construction and thus offer outstanding examples of monastic architecture in Central Europe from the 9th to the 11th century. Criterion (vi): The Monastery of Reichenau was a highly significant artistic centre of great significance to the history of art in Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries, as is superbly illustrated by its monumental wall paintings and its illuminations.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Monastic Island of Reichenau in Lake Constance (Klosterinsel Reichenau im Bodensee) to The Monastic Island of Reichenau.

Property The Pécs (Sopianae) Early Christian Cemetery

Id. N° 853 Rev State Party Hungary Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

45

Criterion (iii): The burial chambers and memorial chapels of the Sopianae cemetery bear outstanding testimony to the strength and faith of the Christian communities of Late Roman Europe.

Criterion (iv): The unique Early Christian sepulchral art and architecture of the northern and western Roman provinces is exceptionally well and fully illustrated by the Sopianae cemetery at Pécs.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Sopianae Palaeochristian Cemetery Site, Pécs to The Pécs ( Sopianae) Early Christian Cemetery.

Property The City of Verona Id. N° 797 Rev State Party Italy Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): In its urban structure and its architecture, Verona is an outstanding example of a town that has developed progressively and uninterruptedly over two thousand years, incorporating artistic elements of the highest quality from each succeeding period. Criterion (iv): Verona represents in an exceptional way the concept of the fortified town at several seminal stages of European history.

Property Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and other Franciscan sites

Id. N° 990 State Party Italy Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (i): Assisi represents an ensemble of masterpieces of human creative genius such as the Basilica of San Francesco, which have it a deep fundamental reference for art history in Europe and in the world.

Criterion (ii): The interchange of artistic and spiritual message of the Franciscan Order has significantly contributed to developments in art and architecture in the world. Criterion (iii): Assisi represents a unique example of continuity of a city-sanctuary within its environmental setting from its Umbrian-Roman and medieval origins to the present, represented in the cultural landscape, the religious ensembles, systems of communication, and

traditional land-use. Criterion (iv): The Basilica of San Francesco is an outstanding example of a type of architectural ensemble that has significantly influenced the development of art and architecture. Criterion (vi): Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from the Middle Ages been closely associated with the cult and diffusion of the Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of peace and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs.

The Observer of the Holy See warmly congratulated the Committee for the inscription of the site. He underlined that the rehabilitation work of the Balisica of San Francesco undertaken after the earthquake of 1997 was carried out remarquably. He stressed the importance of the commitment - including financially- of the Italian State. He considered that the application of criterion (vi) was particularly justified.

Property Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of

the Kingdom of Ryukyu Id. N° 972 State Party Japan Criteria C (ii) (iii) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): For several centuries the Ryukyu Islands served as a centre of economic and cultural interchange between south-east Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, and this is vividly demonstrated by the surviving monuments. Criterion (iii): The culture of the Ryukyuan Kingdom evolved and flourished in a special political and economic environment, which gave its culture a unique quality. Criterion (vi): The Ryukyu sacred sites constitute an exceptional example of an indigenous form of nature and ancestor worship that has survived intact into the modern age alongside other established world religions.

Property Curonian Spit Id. N° 994 State Party Lithuania/Russian Federation Criteria C (v)

The Committee inscribed the Curonian Spit as a cultural landscape on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (v):

46

Criterion (v) The Curonian Spit is an outstanding example of a landscape of sand dunes that is under constant threat from natural forces (wind and tide). After disastrous human interventions that menaced its survival the Spit was reclaimed by massive protection and stabilization works begun in the 19th century and still continuing to the present day.

Concerning natural values, the Committee noted that the Curonian Spit is an important site at the European scale and very significant within the Baltic Region as a whole. However, it was not considered to meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List as a natural property. The Committee welcomed the effective collaboration in the management planning between the two States Parties. The Observer of Lithuania in expressing her appreciation, informed the Committee of her Government's commitment to the effective protection of this fragile environment. The Observer from the Russian Federation noted that this is the first cultural landscape from his country and a result of continuous transborder co-operation for the last two years. He hoped that a similar exercise could be envisaged with Finland for a potential World Heritage area.

Property Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House)

Id. N° 965 State Party Netherlands Criteria C (i) (ii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (ii):

Criterion (i): The Rietveld Schröderhuis in Utrecht is an icon of the Modern Movement in architecture and an outstanding expression of human creative genius in its purity of ideas and concepts as developed by the De Stijl movement. Criterion (ii): With its radical approach to design and the use of space, the Rietveld Schröderhuis occupies a seminal position in the development of architecture in the modern age.

Following an extensive debate on the application of criterion (vi) to this particular site and in general, and at the request of several delegates, the Delegate of Zimbabwe (Rapporteur) informed the Committee that during the meeting "Authenticity and Integrity in the African Context" held recently in Zimbabwe, the application of criterion (vi), as well as, of criterion (i) was debated at considerable length. He therefore proposed, upon completion of the report of that meeting, to transmit it to the Committee in order to enable the Committee to continue discussions on this matter.

The Committee therefore decided to defer the the application of criterion (vi) to this property.

Property Ruins of León Viejo Id. N° 613 rev State Party Nicaragua Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The ruined town of León Viejo provides exceptional testimony to the material culture of one of the earliest Spanish colonial settlements. Criterion (iv) The form and nature of early Spanish settlement in the New World, adapting European architectural and planning concepts to the material potential of another region, are uniquely preserved in the archaeological site of León Viejo.

Property The Frankincense Trail Id. N° 1010 State Party Oman Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv).

Criterion (iii): The group of archaeological sites in Oman represent the production and distribution of frankincense, one of the most important luxury items of trade in the Old World in antiquity. Criterion (iv): The Oasis of Shisr and the entrepots of Khor Rori and Al-Balid are outstanding examples of medieval fortified settlements in the Persian Gulf region.

At the initiative of ICOMOS, and with the agreement of the State Party the name of the property was changed to The Frankincense Trail.

Property The Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa

Id. N° 1016 State Party Peru Criteria C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The ornamented architecture in the historic centre of Arequipa represents a masterpiece of the creative integration of European and native characteristics, crucial for the cultural expression of the entire region.

47

Criterion (iv): The historic centre of Arequipa is an outstanding example of a colonial settlement, challenged by the natural conditions, the indigenous influences, the process of conquest and evangelization, as well as the spectacular nature of its setting.

Property The Kyongju Historic Areas Id. N° 976 State Party Republic of Korea Criteria C (ii) and (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii): The Kyongju Historic Areas contain a number of sites and monuments of exceptional significance in the development of Buddhist and secular architecture in Korea. Criterion (iii): The Korean peninsula was ruled for nearly a thousand years by the Shilla Dynasty, and the sites and monuments in and around Kyongju (including the holy mountain of Namsan) bear outstanding testimony to its cultural achievements.

The Delegate of Morocco commended the State Party for agreeing to remove the railway line currently truncating the site.

Property The Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kanghwa Dolmen Sites

Id. N° 977 State Party Republic of Korea Criteria C (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iii):

Criterion (iii): The global prehistoric technological and social phenomenon that resulted in the appearance in the 2nd and 3rd millennia BCE of funerary and ritual monuments constructed of large stones (the “Megalithic Culture”) is nowhere more vividly illustrated than in the dolmen cemeteries of Koch’ang, Hwasun, and Kangwha.

Supporting the nomination, the Delegate of Australia commended the impeccable state of the site and hoped that when the time is ripe, dolmen sites north of the 38° parallel would be added.

Property The Historic and Architectural Complex

of the Kazan Kremlin Id. N° 980 State Party Russian Federation Criteria C (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Kazan Kremlin complex represents exceptional testimony of historical continuity and cultural diversity over a long period of time, resulting in an important interchange of values generated by the different cultures. Criterion (iii): The historic citadel represents an exceptional testimony of the Khanate period and is the only surviving Tatar fortress with traces of the original town-planning conception. Criterion (iv): The site and its key monuments represent an outstanding example of a synthesis of Tatar and Russian influences in architecture, integrating different cultures (Bulgar, Golden Horde, Tatar, Italian, and Russian), as well as showing the impact of Islam and Christianity.

Property The Ensemble of Ferrapontov Monastery

Id. N° 982 State Party Russian Federation Criteria C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The wall paintings of Dionisy in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin at Ferrapontov Monastery are the highest expression of Russian mural art in the 15th-16th centuries. Criterion (iv): The complex of Ferrapontov Monastery is the purest and most complete example of an Orthodox monastic community from the 15th-17th centuries, a crucial period in the cultural and spiritual development of Russia.

Property The Island of Saint-Louis Id. N° 956 State Party Senegal Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List in the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

48

Criterion (ii): The historic town of Saint-Louis exhibits an important exchange of values and influences on the development of education and culture, architecture, craftsmanship, and services in a large part of West Africa. Criterion (iv): The Island of Saint-Louis, a former capital of West Africa, is an outstanding example of a colonial city, characterized by its particular natural setting, and it illustrates the development of colonial government in this region.

ICOMOS informed the Committee that it had received a map of the property responding to the request by the Bureau to expand the boundaries of the property to include the entire island.

Property The Bardejov Town Conservation Reserve

Id. N° 973 State Party Slovakia Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): The fortified town of Bardejov provides exceptionally well preserved evidence of the economic and social structure of trading towns in medieval Central Europe. Criterion (iv): The plan, buildings, and fortifications of Bardejov illustrate the urban complex that developed in Central Europe in the Middle Ages at major points along the great trade routes of the period.

Property The Archaeological Ensemble of Tárraco

Id. N° 875 Rev State Party Spain Criteria C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii): The Roman remains of Tárraco are of exceptional importance in the development of Roman urban planning and design and served as the model for provincial capitals elsewhere in the Roman world. Criterion (iii): Tárraco provides eloquent and unparalleled testimony to a significant stage in the history of the Mediterranean lands in antiquity.

Property The Palmeral of Elche Id. N° 930 State Party Spain Criteria C (ii) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (v):

Criterion (ii): The Palmeral (palm groves) of Elche represent a remarkable example of the transference of a characteristic landscape from one culture and continent to another, in this case from North Africa to Europe. Criterion (v): The palm grove or garden is a typical feature of the North African landscape which was brought to Europe during the Islamic occupation of much of the Iberian peninsula and has survived to the present day. The ancient irrigation system, which is still functioning, is of special interest.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from The Palmeral of Elche: A Cultural landscape Inherited from Al-Andalus to The Palmeral of Elche.

Property The Roman Walls of Lugo Id. N° 987 State Party Spain Criteria C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The Roman walls of Lugo are the finest surviving example of late Roman military fortifications.

Property The Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boí

Id. N° 988 State Party Spain Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and( iv):

Criterion (ii): The significant developments in Romanesque art and architecture in the churches of the Vall de Boí testify to profound cultural interchange across medieval Europe, and in particular across the mountain barrier of the Pyrenees.

Criterion (iv): The Churches of the Vall de Boí are an especially pure and consistent example of Romanesque art in a virtually untouched rural setting.

In relation to the works of art of these churches, which are currently exhibited in a museum in Barcelona, ICOMOS

49

recommended that the State Party investigate the possibility of returning some of these to their original location.

The Delegate of Finland recalled his previous statement on the necessity of a sub-numbering system for serial nominations such as this property. He urged the Committee to examine this issue. The Delegate of Ecuador disagreed with the proposal of a sub-numbering system. The Committee noted the change of name of the property from The Catalan Romanesque Cultural Landscape of the Vall de Boí to The Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boí.

Property The Archaeological Site of Atapuerca Id. N° 989 State Party Spain Criteria C (iii) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (v):

Criterion (iii): The earliest and most abundant evidence of humankind in Europe is to be found in the caves of the Sierra de Atapuerca. Criterion (v): The fossil remains in the Sierra de Atapuerca constitute an exceptional reserve of information about the physical nature and the way of life of the earliest human communities in Europe.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Archaeological Site of the Sierra de Atapuerca, in the Municipalities of Atapuerca and Ibeas de Juarros (Burgos) to The Archaeological Site of Atapuerca.

Property The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland

Id. N° 968 State Party Sweden Criteria C (iv) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v):

Criterion (iv): The landscape of Southern Öland takes its contemporary form from its long cultural history, adapting to the physical constraints of the geology and topograpy. Criterion (v): Southern Öland is an outstanding example of human settlement, making the optimum use of diverse landscape types on a single island.

Several delegates, as well as IUCN, emphasized that the site was an outstanding example of a continuing landscape which supports and maintains biological diversity.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Södra Ölands Odlingslandskap (The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland) to The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland.

Property The Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzone

Id. N° 884 State Party Switzerland Criteria C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The fortified ensemble of Bellinzone is an outstanding example of a late medieval defensive structure guarding a key strategic Alpine pass.

The Delegate of Italy drew the attention of the Committee to the influence of the Dukes of Milan in the construction of the defensive walls.

Property The Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda

Id. N° 983 State Party United Kingdom Criteria C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The Historic Town of St George with its related fortifications is an outstanding example of a continuously occupied, fortified, colonial town dating from the early 17th century and the oldest English town in the New World.

ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi). The Delegate of Mexico expressed surprise at seeing the property nominated as a single site instead of as part of a serial nomination of Caribbean fortifications. The Committee discussed the application of cultural criterion (vi) for this site. The Delegate of Thailand noted that the criterion had not been requested by the State Party. ICOMOS responded that the Advisory Bodies evaluated properties according to the procedures set out in the Operational Guidelines and recommended criteria deriving from their evaluations. The Committee decided to inscribe the property only under cultural criterion (iv), indicating the possibility of re-nomination of the property under cultural criterion (vi) at a later date.

50

Property The Blaenavon Industrial Landscape Id. N° 984 State Party United Kingdom Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): The Blaenavon landscape constitutes an exceptional illustration in material form of the social and economic structure of 19th century industry. Criterion (iv): The components of the Blaenavon industrial landscape together make up an outstanding and remarkably complete example of a 19th century industrial landscape.

The Observer of the United Kingdom, representing the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, hoped that this decision would encourage nominations of other industrial sites. At Blaenavon, heritage is integrated in the development process, in a partnership between local people, governmental and other organizations, as well as the private sector.

Property The Stone Town of Zanzibar Id. N° 173 Rev State Party United Republic of Tanzania Criteria C (ii) (iii) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (vi)

Criterion (ii): The Stone Town of Zanzibar is an outstanding material manifestation of cultural fusion and harmonization. Criterion (iii): For many centuries there was intense seaborne trading activity between Asia and Africa, and this is illustrated in an exceptional manner by the architecture and urban structure of the Stone Town. Criterion (vi): Zanzibar has great symbolic importance in the suppression of slavery, since it was one of the main slave-trading ports in East Africa and also the base from which its opponents such as David Livingstone conducted their campaign.

The Committee requested the State Party to report to the twenty-sixth session of the Committee on the progress made in clarifying the co-ordinating and supervisory role and strengthening of the Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority.

Property The Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz Id. N° 885 State Party Uzbekistan Criteria C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): Shakhrisyabz contains many fine monuments, and in particular those from the Timurid period, which was of great cultural and political significance in medieval Central Asia.

Criterion (iv): The buildings of Shakhrisyabz, notably the Ak-Sarai Palace and the Tomb of Timur, are outstanding examples of a style which had a profound influence on the architecture of this region.

Property Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas Id. N° 986 State Party Venezuela Criteria C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas is a masterpiece of modern city planning, architecture and art, created by the Venezuelan architect Carlos Raúl Villanueva and a group of distinguished avant-garde artists. Criterion (iv): The Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas is an outstanding example of the coherent realization of the urban, architectural, and artistic ideals of the early 20th century. It constitutes an ingenious interpretation of the concepts and spaces of colonial traditions and an example of an open and ventilated solution, appropriate for its tropical environment.

C.2 Extension of cultural properties already

inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property The Monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin

Id. N° 777 Bis State Party Armenia Criteria C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property.

51

Property The Potala Palace and the Jokhang

Temple Monastery, Lhasa Id. N° 707 Bis State Party China Criteria C (i) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property of the Potala Palace to include the Jokhang Temple Monastery. The Committee decided to retain the name of the city (Lhasa) in the name of the property.

Property The Classical Gardens of Suzhou Id. N° 813 Bis State Party China Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property of the Classical Gardens of Suzhou to include the Canglang Pavilion, the Lion Forest Garden, the Garden of Cultivation, the Couple’s Garden Retreat, and the Retreat and Reflection Garden. C.3 Cultural Properties which the Committee

deferred

Property The Old City of Mostar Id. N° 946 State Party Bosnia and Herzegovina Criteria C (iv) (vi)

ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed under criteria (iv) and (vi). However, following information received from the UNESCO Office in Sarajevo concerning the threats to the site due to uncontrolled building in the old town and its perimeter, the Committee decided to defer the inscription of this property, in order to allow the State Party to provide more information on the protection of the site. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Secretariat to report on this issue at the forthcoming session of the Bureau.

Property The Bolgar Historical and Architectural Complex

Id. N° 981 State Party Russian Federation Criteria C (iii)

The Committee decided that this nomination be deferred to allow the State Party to provide more detailed information about the reconstruction of the Great Minaret, confirmation that the industrial project has been definitively abandoned, and a more detailed comparative

analysis, as requested by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. C.4 Cultural Property which the Committee did

not inscribe on the World Heritage List

Property The Abava Valley Id. N° Latvia State Party 997

The Committee decided not to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List. XI. INFORMATION STRATEGY XI.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/13, describing the Centre's plans for developing an Information Management Systems Plan. The plan has been developed based on the work of a Senior Information Consultant, Ms Gwynneth Martin, who worked at the Centre during a period of three months. The plan had already been presented by Ms. Martin to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, 2-4 October 2000. XI.2 The Director outlined the history of the initiative, including the early calls in 1998 by the Management Audit and the Expert Group on Information Management for an Integrated System to receive, process, and archive large quantities of information in an efficient and expeditious manner followed by a prototype in 1999. The plan, recognized the limited capacity of the Centre to implement such a system, and urged that an incremental approach should underlie all planning. Plan implementation would proceed in three stages, as follows: Stage I: Design and consolidation (months 1-4) - to produce detailed system specifications; to begin building capacity in the Centre and to make better use of existing information technology facilities; Stage II: Development and implementation (months 5-12) - to acquire and install hardware, to develop, install and test the system, and to train users; and Stage III: Operation and review of an integrated data base (months 13-14) - to review and assess system operation, and recommend further developments XI.3 The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the Plan and said it formed the first step towards defining an overall information management strategy for the Centre and for the work of the Convention. He recalled discussions held during the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest (2-4 October 2000) when the Ministry of Information and Technology of his Government indicated strong willingness and commitment to support the work of the Centre in this regard. He urged the Centre to continue the incremental approach recommended in the Plan with a view towards elaborating and adopting a fully-fledged Information Management Strategy by the time of the

52

twenty-sixth session of the Committee in Hungary in 2002. He indicated fully Hungary's willingness to be a strategic partner in the process. XI.4 The Observer of Argentina noted the discrepancy between the total budget indicated for the implementation of the Plan, i.e. US$ 165,000 and the sum allocated in the budget proposals for the year 2001 in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. The Director of the Centre pointed out that the shortfall between the total amount needed and the amount proposed for the year 2001 would be bridged by funds remaining unspent in the year 2000. He said that the latter funds are currently being held in order to pay for the services of a consultant who will commence work before the end of the year. He also responded to Hungary's points, which he was in agreement with, namely that the issue had to eventually be addressed in a wider context. Currently, the focus was on addressing an immediate problem to do with internal organization. XI.5 The Delegate of Greece, echoing another remark of the Observer of Argentina, noted the importance of coordinating the Centre's information planning with that of UNESCO and asked if the Centre was in consultation with the Organization's Informatics Division. In response, the Director noted that both the consultant and members of his staff had established these contacts. XI.6 The Observer of the United Kingdom expressed satisfaction with the Director's response and also highlighted the importance of this aspect of the Centre's work and recalled the fact that his Government, as well as the United States of America and Finland, have provided support to the Centre's work in this regard. He supported the views of the Delegate of Hungary about preparing an Information Management Strategy to be considered in the year 2002 which should look ahead to the needs of the Convention over the coming 10 years. XI.7 The Chairperson concluded discussions on the subject. The Committee adopted the Information Management System Strategy as presented by the Centre and endorsed the incremental approach to its implementation. The Committee however, invited the Centre to work with Hungarian and other interested delegations to elaborate an Information Management Strategy that could be adopted at the time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002. To this effect, he suggested that the Centre should be requested to submit a progress report on steps taken, to the next session of the Bureau in 2001. XII. DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND

EDUCATION ACTIVITIES XII.1 The Chairperson introduced item 12 of the agenda concerning documentation, information and education activities and invited the Secretariat to present the report of activities and the proposals for the

programme and budget for 2001. The Secretariat emphasized the increasing interest of States Parties in the activities of Chapter V, and notably with regard to information and educational activities, a fact demonstrated by an ever-growing number of international assistance requests for promotional activities. The Committee was informed that the activities of the Centre's Documentation, Information and Education Unit and the promotional activities of UNESCO's Cultural Heritage Division were now centralised at the World Heritage Centre. The Secretariat also indicated that this would contribute towards ensuring a better synergy between the programme activities, optimize the technical, financial and human resources available and improve the visibility and impact of the mobilizing messages to be conveyed. XII.2 The Secretariat emphasized upon the need to seize the opportunity of the 30th anniversary of the Convention to give decisive momentum for its promotion amongst the local populations, young people, universities, decision-makers and public and private media sectors. XII.3 The Secretariat then presented the activities proposed for 2001 and the corresponding budget. It underlined the need to devote particular attention to the activities developed at the local and national levels. The need to strengthen efforts for the management and updating of data bases through the development of new methods of access to information was also expressed. Partnerships with the media, the private sector and especially with the tourism industry, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention, would be enhanced to inform the different target groups and ensure a better comprehension of the objectives of the Convention. With regard to education, the Secretariat stressed the complementarity of these activities, more particularly between the Special Project for the participation of young people and the Forum UNESCO, University and Heritage. XII.4 During its presentation, the Secretariat drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the fact that the budget for this Chapter had been considerably reduced and underlined that this decrease could affect the execution and development of new projects. It stressed the need to reinforce in the future the information activities and in particular the production of specific material on technical and scientific subjects. XII.5 The Chairperson congratulated the Secretariat for the quality of its presentation. The Delegate of Belgium intervened to commend the Secretariat and to indicate the importance that her country accorded to the questions relating to the Guidelines and Principles governing the use of the emblem. She also under-scored the need to put into practice a rigorous selection process for partners. With regard to the documents prepared by the Secretariat for the statutory meetings, the Delegate emphasized the need to ensure the simultaneous availability of these documents in the two working languages of the Committee. The

53

Director of the World Heritage Centre responded to the questions raised and underscored the importance he attached to awareness programmes, indicating that he had already begun to take measures to establish linkages with possible strategic partners and donors. The Delegate of Morocco emphasized the importance of the UNESCO itinerant heritage exhibitions to different countries and their presentation at regional events such as those organized by the OAU. XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE

FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 2002

XIII.1 The Chairperson presented the following documents concerning the agenda item 13 : • = WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. and 204/15Corr.

which present the World Heritage Fund, the income and forecasts, the work plan and the proposed budget. These documents also present the annual requirements of the advisory bodies as well as the financial statements and the statement of contributions for the World Heritage Fund as at 31 December 1999, and the provisional accounts and income of the World Heritage Fund as at 31st October 2000.

The Chairperson then reminded the Committee of the actions to be taken during this session: • = Take note of the approved financial statements of the

Fund for the year 1999 and of provisional accounts as at 31 October 2000,

• = Examine and approve the budget of the World Heritage Fund for 2001, its ceiling and allocation by chapters and components as well as the indicative budget for 2002.

XIII.2 The Director of the Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin, then presented the documents in three parts, each part followed by observations, comments and some questions from the Committee:

• = Situation of current reserves from States Parties’ contributions and overall justifications for a reduced budget for 2001,

• = Other available resources for the implementation of the Convention (Regular Programme Budget, extrabudgetary funds),

• = The budget proposal for 2001, Chapter by Chapter, and provisional budget for 2002.

XIII.3 In introducing document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev, the Director of the Centre, pointed out that the proposed budget of the World Heritage Fund was considerably reduced compared to previous years.

Expenditures were now nearly 25% more than the income. If the income-to-expenditure ratio of the Fund is maintained at this level, it could lead to seriously reduce future budgets, thus curtailing the number and range of activities which could be supported. The Director therefore suggested the following : ��increase: �� voluntary contributions to the Fund; �� Regular Programme Budget support from UNESCO; �� the percentage of assessed contributions from States

Parties to the Fund; ��improve timeliness of payments of dues by States

Parties to the Fund. He noted that 78 States Parties owed the Fund a sum of US$ 2,198,606 as of 31 October 2000, including 7 Members of the Committee whose total dues to the Fund amounted to US$ 48,988.

The current need to reduce the budget of the Fund for 2001 results from: �� stagnation of income, �� a 14% annual increase in the budget between 1996

and 2000, �� implementation rates close to 90% between 1996 and

2000, making the Centre the UNESCO Unit with the highest project implementation rates, and

�� a severe decrease in operational reserves as a direct outcome of increased project implementation rates.

XIII.4 The Chairperson noted that the Director of the Centre had adopted a responsible attitude to budget planning for the year 2001. Delegates from Hungary, Canada, Argentina, Thailand and Finland thanked and congratulated the Director for providing a clear and concise introduction to factors determining budget planning for the year 2001. The Delegate of Hungary expressed the hope that in the coming years the Director would move towards developing a financial strategy for the work of the Convention. Delegates of Canada and Thailand recalled the fact that at its annual session in 1996 (Mérida, Mexico) the Committee had urged the Centre to reduce the reserves of the Fund to the minimum required by the financial regulations of UNESCO and use maximum resources of the Fund for supporting projects and activities. This strategy of the Committee had led to a reduction in these reserves. Both Delegates urged the Director to negotiate with the Comptroller of UNESCO to reduce reserves to a suitable level that would allow more financial resources for the Centre’s annual budget for the Fund. XIII.5 The Observer of Argentina noted that the extra-budgetary resources of the Centre (44%) now exceeded contributions from UNESCO’ s Regular Programme Budget (21%) as well as the World Heritage Fund (35%). He commented that this situation was not normal and that the Centre should aim to obtain more funds from UNESCO’ s Regular Programme Budget. He said that

54

given the fact that the Centre enjoys a certain degree of autonomy, its Regular Programme Budget should be considered incompressible and budget cuts should not be permitted. In addition, States Parties to the 1972 Convention could consider requesting through the governing bodies of the Organization, a larger share of UNESCO's Regular budget to benefit the work of the Convention. In this context, he recalled the fact that the Director-General of UNESCO had been an active Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee in 1998. The Delegate of Finland noted that the volume of unpaid dues to the Fund was alarming and that the Committee should call upon all States Parties to pay their dues urgently. The Director of the Centre responded to the comments of the Delegates by reiterating his view that unless there are structural changes in the management of the Fund through a strong increase in income resources, the crisis that may result from continued deficit spending is likely to be unavoidable. XIII.6 In the second part of his presentation, the Director of the Centre informed the Committee that he had made all efforts to meet the requirements of the advisory bodies so that the core component of the Convention’s work, i.e. evaluation of nominations submitted by the States Parties, would not suffer despite overall budgetary reductions he has proposed. He praised the constructive attitude and cordial environment that had marked the negotiations between the Centre and advisory bodies and said that they have initiated a new and joint approach to budgetary planning issues. Referring to extra-budgetary resources available for the work of the Convention, the Director noted that most donors, including States Parties to the Convention, preferred supporting project activities bringing benefits to specific sites rather than other core activities of the Convention like improving the representativity of the World Heritage List. He noted that extra-budgetary contributions to the work of the Convention had risen substantially, that the UN Foundation (UNF) has become a major partner and that the Centre will do its best to continue to develop the co-operation with this important new partner. He said that Regular Programme Budget of UNESCO met the Centre’s staff costs, costs of statutory meetings and a certain amount of travel and other operational costs. He then informed the Committee of estimated amounts of extra-budgetary resources benefiting each of the five Chapters of the World Heritage Fund totaling US$ 5,295,280 and distributed as follows:

Chapter I US$ 746,630 Chapter II US$ 809,000 Chapter III US$ 2,969,650 Chapter IV US$ 540,000 Chapter V US$ 580,500

He informed the Committee that UNF was an important donor contributing towards Chapter II, III and IV for about US$ 3.5 million for 2001; Belgium, China and New Zealand contributed towards Chapter I activities, whereas Italy supported projects under Chapter II and Belgium and France projects under Chapter III. Other than UNF, other contributors of extra-budgetary resources do not provide overheads to cover the Centre's administrative costs. While UNF and other co-operation are important for the Centre’ s future, there are serious shortages of human resources to ensure effective delivery of quality outputs and services demanded by such donors. XIII.7 The Director continued with the third part of his presentation of document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. and introduced the 2001 proposed budget Chapter-by-Chapter. Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention The amount proposed for Chapter I was approved: US$ 195,000. Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List In presenting Chapter II proposals, the Director pointed out the increases in the amounts proposed for the Advisory Bodies under this Chapter fixed on the basis of the consultations held during the Committee: US$ 430,000 for ICOMOS, US$ 325,000 for IUCN, and once again reassured Delegates that funds provided to the advisory bodies are sufficient for them to effectively carry out all evaluations submitted by States Parties. The total sum approved for Chapter II amounts to US$ 975,000. Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the Convention In the presentation of this Chapter, the Director explained that the amount for Technical Cooperation was reduced to offset the increase made to the Advisory Bodies contributions in Chapter II. This was feasible due to the various extrabudgetary resources available this year against this budgetary line. Training: the amount foreseen for ICCROM for training was approved for US$ 156,000 including ICCROM management costs and coordination operations for World Heritage (US$46,000), training sessions for modules testing (US$30,000) and AFRICA 2009 (US$80,000). The total sum approved for Chapter III amounts to US$ 2,355,000.

55

Chapter IV – Reactive Monitoring and Submission of Periodic Reports For reactive monitoring, ICOMOS and IUCN are attributed the same amounts as per year 2000. Support to States Parties for the submission of periodic reports: Africa will be the region submitting periodic reports in 2001 The total sum approved under Chapter IV amounts to US$ 520,000. Chapter V – Documentation, Information and Education The amount for this Chapter was approved without any modification (US$303.000) XIII.8 Following this presentation, comments were made by Committee members on different aspects of the budget. The Canadian Delegate noted that as the percentage of the extrabudgetary contributions to the work of the Convention increased, more external partners were participating the Convention’s projects and activities and the Centre may therefore need to develop tool-kits to develop standards and guidelines that could inform such partners on how to carry out the Convention’s work. She also pointed out that the Centre’s critical needs for office space, additional staff and programme resources from Regular Budget of UNESCO shall be addressed. She suggested that resolutions to the UNESCO General Conference in 2001 should be tabled in order to met some of these needs in the 2002-2003 biennium. She also emphasized the need to adhere strictly to provisions of the Operational Guidelines in authorising promotional products and texts and in the use of the emblem by parties external to UNESCO involved in the implementation of the Convention. XIII.9 The Chairperson pointed out that the services provided by the Centre to the States Parties to prepare nominations and implement other Convention activities may have to be paid for in the future under pay-as-you-go principle which could imply some special provisions to exempt or accommodate the needs of less developed countries (LDC). XIII.10 The Director acknowledged the need to strictly follow Operational Guidelines paragraphs on the use of the emblem and that he has recently raised this point with other UNESCO’ s Units. He noted that the importance of the World Heritage in UNESCO is not adequately reflected in policy and budgetary documents. He also committed himself to provide the Committee next year with estimates of in-kind contributions provided by the Centre staff’s involvement in promoting bilateral and other projects benefiting the work of the Convention.

XIII.11 The Delegate of Thailand recalled the fact that the World Heritage Fund resources were once used to pay staff salaries. The Committee however requested UNESCO to absorb these costs from the Regular Budget. The Representative of South Africa pointed out that the Committee must undertake strong action against States Parties who have not paid their dues, including preventing the inclusion of sites nominated by such Parties in the World Heritage List. The Delegate of the United Kingdom called upon the Committee Members to ensure consistency in their interventions in inter-governmental meetings such as that of the World Heritage Committee and the UNESCO Executive Board. He acknowledged that the protection of the tangible heritage as promoted by the Convention needs to be a UNESCO strategic priority; but he pointed out that the recent strategic priorities established by UNESCO’ s Executive Board did not make sufficient reference to the conservation of tangible heritage. Committee Members who are also Members of the Executive Board should send a strong message to the Director General and the UNESCO Secretariat staff involved in the preparation of the next session of the Executive Board to raise the profile of the Convention’s work to protect tangible heritage as a strategic priority of the organization. He also invited the Centre to follow UNESCO’ s shift from inputs-based to results oriented budgeting. The Director of the Centre agreed to make that shift next year as the Centre, in accordance with the Committee’s decision made at its current session, will prepare biennial budgets to coincide with UNESCO biennal programme and budget. XIII.12 The Chairperson closed the debate on the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev and declared that the budget of the World Heritage Fund for the year 2001 was approved for four million three hundred and forty eight thousand US dollars (US$ 4,348,000) and the Emergency Reserve Fund for six hundred thousand US$ (US$ 600,000). The provisional budget for the year 2002 was fixed at four million one hundred thousand US dollars (US$ 4,100,000). XIII.3 The Committee asked the Chairperson, on their behalf, to write to the President of the Executive Board and to the Director-General of UNESCO, requesting that the relevance of the objectives of the Convention be recognized and resources of the World Heritage Centre, within the Culture Sector, be enhanced in the framework of the next biennial exercise. The Committee, after having approved the content of this letter, suggested that the Chairperson meet the President of the Executive Board and the Director-General of UNESCO to discuss these matters in more depth. It was also suggested that a copy of this letter be sent to all members of the Executive Board. The following table provides details of the approved budget by Chapter and component.

56

Approved budget for 2001 and provisional budget for 2002

Chapters and components

Approved budget 2000

Approved Budget 2001

Provisional Budget 2002

Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention

Participation at statutory meetings 60 000 70 000 60 000 Reforms Group 20 000 Working group for WH strategic planning 10 000 Working group on revision of Operational Guidelines

15 000

Development of an Information Management System

114 000 80 000 100 000

Evaluation of International Assistance 40 000 Coordination with other Conventions and Programmes etc…

25 000 25 000 30 000

Sub-total Chapter I 264 000 195 000 190 000 Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List

Global Strategy 278 000 200 000 180 000 Africa 40 000 5 000 Arab States 8 000 20 000 Asia, including Central Asia 50 000 30 000 Pacific 50 000 35 000 Europe & North America 10 000 5 000 Eastern and Central Europe 20 000 20 000 Latin America 25 000 25 000 The Caribbean 20 000 20 000 Thematic studies: ICOMOS 40 000 30 000 IUCN 15 000 10 000 Advisory services: ICOMOS 495 000 430 000 400 000 IUCN 355 000 325 000 300 000 Others 20 000 20 000 20 000 Sub-total Advisory Services : 870 000 775 000 720 000

Sub-total Chapter II 1 148 000 975 000 900 000 Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the Convention

Preparatory Assistance 325 000 350 000 300 000 Technical Co-operation Including IUCN/WHC Africa 2003 Nature

1 245 00060 000

965 00050 000

960 000

Training 980 000 960 000 900 000 Including ICCROM 85 000 46 000Including training activities 107 635 30 000

Africa 2009 80 000 80 000 Including IUCN 30 000 30 000Support to on-site promotional activities 80 000 80 000 70 000

Sub-total Chapter III 2 630 000 2 355 000 2 230 000

57

Chapters and components Approved

budget 2000

Approved Budget 2001

Provisional Budget 2002

Chapter IV – Monitoring the state of conservation of sites

Reactive Monitoring 262 500 200 000 200 000 Including ICOMOS 60 000 60 000 Including IUCN 56 500 56 500 Including ICSU (monitoring of Kakadu National Park)

61 000

Support to States Parties for the submission of Periodic Reports:

Methodology development 22 500 20 000 0

Support to States Parties of a Region selected by the Committee (Article 29) Technical Coordination for Submission 35 000 0 0Africa 77 000 130 000 20 000 Arab States 100 000 20 000 20 000 Asia and Pacific 55 000 80 000 130 000 Europe and North America 15 000 10 000 20 000 Eastern and Central Europe 20 000 20 000 30 000 Latin America and the Caribbean 35 000 40 000 80 000 Sub-total support for periodic reporting 337 000 320 000 300 000

Sub-total Chapter IV 622 000 520 000 500 000 Chapter V – Documentation, Information and Education

Documentation 38 000 38 000 40 000 Information material 140 000 105 000 95 000 Internet and WHIN 70 000 70 000 70 000 Media and Publishers 8 000 5 000 5 000 Education 80 000 85 000 70 000

Sub-total Chapter V 336 000 303 000 280 000 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET OF WHF 5 000 000 4 348 000 4 100 000

Emergency Reserve Fund 600 000 600 000 600 000

Promotional Activities and services for these activities

305 469 651 272

GRAND TOTAL 5 905 469 5 599 272 4 700 000

58

XIV. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE XIV.1 Report on the evaluation of international

assistance and prioritization in granting international assistance to States Parties

The attention of the Committee was drawn to WHC-2000/CONF.204/16, the Report on the evaluation of international assistance and prioritization in granting international assistance to States Parties. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee, at its twenty-second session decided to carry out an evaluation of international assistance. The Central Evaluation Unit of UNESCO was entrusted with this evaluation, which was carried out by a French company, C3E. The evaluation was undertaken between summer 1999 and April 2000, through a study of the files of the World Heritage Centre, interviews with the States Parties, advisory bodies, and the Secretariat, followed by a meeting with all parties concerned. The evaluation did not include an impact study to permit the evaluation of the results of assistance granted to the beneficiary sites. Similarly, it did not incorporate the results of the parallel evaluation carried out by ICCROM on international training requests for cultural heritage, as ICCROM had not completed its study at the time. The Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session examined the C3E Report, and a summary of the discussions at the Bureau is contained in the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau, WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, paragraphs VII.5 to VII.9. The Special Session in Budapest in October 2000 did not have time to discuss the C3E Report. However, the IUCN and ICCROM submitted comments on the C3E Report, which were made available at the time. Moreover, there have been substantial discussions for the improvement of the implementation of international assistance at the �� Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention �� Expert Meeting for the Revision of the Operational

Guidelines The Committee examined the C3E Report and took note of its findings. XIV.2 Requests for International Assistance The Bureau met during the twenty-fourth session of the Committee after the budget for Technical Assistance for year 2001 under Chapter III was approved, to take decisions or recommend decisions to the Committee concerning international assistance requests. The attention of the Committee and Bureau was drawn to document WHC-2000/CONF.204/17 and 6 requests for decision by the Committee and 14 requests for decision by the Bureau were examined and took the following decisions. All decisions taken by the Bureau and Committee concerning these requests are listed below:

(i) Preparatory Assistance

Mixed Heritage No: 2001-444 Philippines “Regional expert meeting for the preparation of the World Heritage nomination file of the Batanes Archipelago and Ivatan Archaeological Landscape in the Philippines” IUCN’s evaluation was favourable and the Bureau approved the requested amount of US$ 30,000 to support the proposed activity, requesting the World Heritage Centre to co-ordinate the implementation of the activity in close collaboration with the State Party and the UNESCO Bangkok Office. New request presented to the Bureau: Kyrgystan “Preparation of the nomination dossier for the Cholpon-Ata Petroglyphs in the Issyk-Kul Basin as a mixed property.” The Secretariat informed the Bureau that both ICOMOS and IUCN reviewed the request favourably, and the Bureau approved the requested amount of US$ 23,100 to support the proposed activity. The Bureau noted with appreciation that this was the first international assistance request submitted by this relatively new State Party to the Convention with no property inscribed on the World Heritage List, and that this activity would eventually lead to a better representation of the World Heritage List in the Central Asian Region.

Cultural Heritage No: 2001-423 Mali “Preparation of a nomination file for the Askia Tomb in Gao” The Bureau approved this request for US$ 30,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested the Centre to ask the national authorities to implement the activity within the framework of Africa 2009. No: 2001-433 Niger “Preparation of the cultural nomination for the Aïr and Ténéré site as a mixed site” The Bureau approved this request for US$ 15,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested the Centre to clarify with the national authorities the points raised by the Advisory Bodies before preparation of the contracts. No. 2001-449 United Republic of Tanzania Preparation of nomination for the Kondoa Irangi Rock Art Paintings The Bureau approved US$ 30,000 for this activity, which should be implemented within the framework of Africa 2009, following the activities implemented in year 2000.

59

No. 2001-427 Peru “Background Studies and Preparation of Nomination Dossier for the Historic Centre of Trujillo” The Bureau approved US$ 15,000 for this activity, subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund. No: 2001-454 Israel “Meeting for the harmonisation of the Tentative Lists within the same geo-cultural area” After discussing this case at length, the Bureau decided to defer approval of this request, recommending the State Party to reformulate the request with the agreement of the other Party and authority concerned (Jordan and Palestine) in the same geo-cultural region. The Observer of Israel informed the Bureau that, as a new State Party to the World Heritage Convention since 1999, his Government had established a National World Heritage Committee and prepared a Tentative List. Upon identifying three cultural heritage themes, his Government had formulated this request for support for the organisation of a Meeting to harmonise trans-national sites with other States Parties in the sub-region, and not for preparing nominations for Israeli sites. The Observer informed the Bureau that preparatory work has already been achieved with support from UNESCO and the European Union for the Dead Sea Basin with Jordan and the Palestinian Authorities. He stated that there continues to be a need for extending research for the Rift Valley, to be organised with the Friends of the Earth, an NGO. Finally, stressing that heritage protection should be undertaken through consensus, the Observer informed the Bureau that the current climate may not be the most suitable for implementing the proposed activity, but called upon States Parties to support this activity when the climate improved. (ii) Technical Co-operation

Natural Heritage No. 2001 – 459 Senegal “Fight against Salvinia molesta in the Delta of the Senegal River at Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary”

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 130,475 for implementing phase 1 of the 3-phased mitigation project under the following conditions: ��the States Party pay its dues to the World Heritage

Fund; ��the State Party provide a detailed budget breakdown

for the sum of US$ 85,715 foreseen as expenditures for clearing the Lake Lamentin that meets the approval of the Centre and IUCN;

��the State Party, Centre and IUCN establish benchmarks and indicators that can determine success of first phase mitigation operations and guide planning of future steps, including any changes in phase 2 and 3 activities as currently foreseen; and

��the State Party, Centre and IUCN develop a plan for financing activities beyond the first phase attracting

resources from potential donors other than the World Heritage Fund thereby minimising the demands on the World Heritage Fund for supporting second and third phase operations.

Furthermore, the Committee decided that this sum of US$ 130,475 be allocated from the emergency assistance budget for 2001 rather than from the technical co-operation allocation for natural heritage for the year 2001. No. 2001-461 Costa Rica “Education and Protection in the Conservation Area of Guanacaste at the Area de Conservación Guanacaste” Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved US$ 40,000 for this activity for covering expenses for educational (US$ 17,600) and protection (US$ 22,400) activities as proposed by the State Party.

Cultural Heritage No. 2001-439 Cuba “Continuation of the Consolidation and Rehabilitation of the Ruinous Third Cloister of Santa Clara’s Convent of the Old Havana and its Fortifications site” Taking into account the previous contribution to the renovation of the building of US$ 30,000, the Committee approved a contribution of US$ 35,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, following the recommendation of the Bureau. No. 2001-446 Dominican Republic “Study on Cultural Tourism in the Historic Centre of Santo Domingo” The Bureau approved US$ 24,207 for this activity subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund and requesting the State Party to bear the costs of the secretarial costs. (iii) Training

Natural Heritage No. 2001-458 Cameroon “Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 – 2002” Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 45,000 for three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the academic biennium 2001 - 2003 at the Gaorua School for Training Specialists in Wildlife, Cameroon.

60

No. 2001-431 Malawi “Capacity Building for Lake Malawi National Park” In accordance with the recommendation of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 37,094 for the proposed activity. No. 2001 – 457 United Republic of Tanzania “Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 – 2002” The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for supporting three fellowships at Mweka College of African Wildlife Management for the academic year 2001-2002

Cultural Heritage No: 2001-445 Pakistan “Training Course for physical, chemical and biological technical analysis of the problems related to the conservation of brick & stone archaeological monuments” The Representative of ICCROM informed the Bureau that the activity proposed was an important national training course targeted for professionals. However, the Representative of ICCROM recommended that the activity proposed be expanded to include participants from the region, who could benefit from the activity held at World Heritage sites. She informed the Bureau that ICCROM would be prepared to provide technical advice for the reformulation of the programme of the training activity proposed. The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 22,000, subject to the State Party implementing this activity as a sub-regional activity, in close co-operation with ICCROM, the UNESCO Bangkok Office and the World Heritage Centre. No: 2001-442 Norway “Culture, Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-operation among Stakeholders. Workshop to elaborate models of co-operation” ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request was, in principle, found to be worthy of support, as the activity proposed would form a part of the existing activity being implemented by the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific under the title “Integrated Community Development and Cultural Heritage Site Preservation in Asia and the Pacific Through Local Efforts (LEAP)". This LEAP project commenced in 1997 based on understanding of the circumstances and problems in the region and has been achieving results in the training of regional site managers and their partners, especially in the awareness-raising aspects of site management. The programme covers a wide area of conservation issues from historic areas to cultural landscapes and from site-management issues to tourism issues. This particular request covers tourism. ICCROM, while supporting the technical content of the request, recommended that the contribution from the World Heritage Fund be restricted to

travel costs of participants to the workshop from developing countries. The Bureau stated that such requests should be submitted through the host country or with their endorsement. The Delegate of China informed the Bureau that his Government, in principle, supported the activity proposed which appeared to be well organised and for the benefit of numerous Asia-Pacific States Parties, and expressed his appreciation for the initiatives taken by the Government of Norway to strengthen the capacity of site managers in the Asia- Pacific Region. However, as the potential host Government of the proposed workshop, the Delegate of China recommended that his Government and the local authorities of Lijiang World Heritage site be officially consulted. In addition, China expressed concern relating to the absence of resource persons from Asia region It requested that the meeting should be put in a global rather than regional context. While the Bureau expressed its appreciation for the initiative of the Government of Norway and the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region, it requested the host country to submit the request in consultation with Norway, the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific and the World Heritage Centre. No. 2001-426 Russian Federation “International Workshop on the preservation and conservation of wooden structures on the example of the restoration project of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Kizhi Pogost” No.: 2001-460 Russian Federation “International Training Workshop for decision-makers on the World Heritage from Eastern and Central Europe” The Bureau, temporarily waiving the application of Operational Guidelines paragraph 121, deferred examination of the two requests from the Russian Federation, in view of the outstanding dues of the State Party since 1992, amounting to US$ 1,514,246. No. 2001-430 Mexico “Course on Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites in the Humid Tropics” ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request addresses issues of great importance through an approach which is well designed, has accurate costs, is committed to post-event dissemination of training materials, and programmed to strengthen regional exchange and co-operation. However, ICCROM also noted that it would be useful to build on lessons learnt in past similar courses in Latin America, supported by the World Heritage Committee, notably PAT 96 and PAT 99. While this course may well be a pilot experience on the humid tropics, many of the issues involved are common to management of archaeological sites everywhere. Indeed, it would be useful to examine precedents beyond Latin America, in the Cultural Triangle of Sri Lanka for example, where many innovative approaches to management of archaeological

61

sites in the tropics have been developed. Moreover, ICCROM informed the Bureau that it would be useful to see the nine modules in the proposed course linked within an explicit framework promoting integrated conservation and management. The Bureau approved US$ 20,900 for this activity, recommending the State Party to take into due consideration the comments provided by ICCROM. (iv) Emergency Assistance

Cultural Heritage New Request Pakistan “Development of a Rescue Programme for the Shalamar Gardens, following the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and Activities for Awareness Raising” The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau and the Committee that it had received on 30 November 2000, a request for Emergency Assistance, seeking support to elaborate a “rescue programme” following the recommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission (October 2000), which had been adopted by the Bureau and Committee. The activity would address the priority actions aimed to remove the threats facing the site, as recognised by the Committee at its 24th session. The request amounting to US$ 84,724, include funding for

��international urban planning expertise US$ 19,692 ��international heritage management planning

expertise US$ 18,492 ��international legal expertise US$ 9,040 ��national expertise to develop a comprehensive

management plan together with the international experts US$ 8,000

��awareness raising meetings for stakeholders and local communities US$ 7,000

��project proposal preparation for seeking other donors as major works were necessary to remove the threats US$ 2,500

��organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore, translation of the World Heritage Education Kit into Urdu US$ 20,000

The Bureau and Committee were informed that this request would support specific actions requested by the Committee during its examination of the state of conservation of the site during its 24th session, and subsequent inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Moreover, the activity would lead to the development of project proposals, which could be utilised to seek other funding sources for financing the major works necessary to ensure the conservation and development of this site. Regarding the funding requested for the organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore, the Education Sector support the objectives. The organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore and the translation of the “World Heritage in Young Hands” into Urdu language were considered important in light of the impact anticipated from such an activity (Pakistan being an E9 State). It was noted that, should the Committee support

this sub-activity, new modules for inclusion in the Education Resource Kit for teachers specifically addressing in-danger listing could be developed. The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it had not had sufficient time to examine the request in detail. However, it appeared that the budget allocation for international experts was high, and suggested that an international legal expert was not appropriate as national legal expertise could be found in Pakistan. The ICOMOS Representative informed the Bureau that it would be prepared to work closely with the State Party and the World Heritage Centre to reformulate the request. After considerable discussion, the Bureau recommended that the Committee approve an allocation of US$ 50,000, requesting the State Party to adjust the budget allocation and activity plan in close co-operation with ICOMOS, ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre, which should be approved by the Chairperson before contracts were issued. The Bureau considered that the component related to the Youth Forum and translation of the Education Kit could be considered under “Assistance for Educational, Information, Promotional Activities”, and should not be funded under Emergency Assistance. Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved US$ 50,000, requesting the State Party to adjust the budget allocation and activity plan in close co-operation with ICOMOS, ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre, which should be approved by the Chairperson before contracts were issued. Special note: Conditions for the granting of international assistance. Following a proposal from Thailand, the Committee agreed that, with respect to countries in arrears, conditions for granting assistance as set out in Operational Guidelines, paragraph 121 should be adhered to. XV. TRAINING STRATEGY I. GLOBAL TRAINING STRATEGY XV.1 The Chair stated that this agenda item has two components, the Global Training Strategy and the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme. The Secretariat presented working document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 indicating that there were two recommendations for adoption by the Committee, the first on a Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage, prepared by ICCROM, and the second, recommendations for follow-up activities to the Strategic Action Plan for Training in the Field of Natural Heritage. The Centre drew the attention of the Committee to the substantive 66-page document Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage prepared by ICCROM, which is provided in full as information document WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.16, to complement the summary of ICCROM’s reflection contained in working document CONF.204/18. XV.2 The Secretariat reported that the meeting between the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and interested States Parties and other advisory bodies to develop “the Regional Training Strategy and Programme Matrix and Related Action Plan”, which ICCROM proposed to host was not

62

held due to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest. She emphasized the increasing awareness of the importance of training, especially national-level capacity building and how the target audience for training evolved along with the changed notion of heritage. Stating that training forms an essential part of UNESCO’s fundamental task to support national capacity building in the fields of competence of the Organization, the Secretariat informed the Committee of the main orientation of past and on-going training activities incorporating them in the heritage conservation supported by UNESCO. Due to difficulties in obtaining donor support for specialized national and regional training institutions for heritage conservation, UNESCO shifted its focus to site-based on-the-job training activities inserted in the operational projects entrusted to the Organization to coordinate or execute, and to building partnerships with existing institutions to insert teaching in heritage management and conservation skills. In this regard, she expressed the Centre’s appreciation for the newly established world heritage studies programmes at the Technical University in Cottbus, Germany, Cilento National Park, Italy; Beijing University, China, Waseda University, Japan, and indicated that the Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France will soon be starting a programme on world heritage and cultural landscape. XV.3 Stressing the need for coherence and complementarity in the numerous on-going initiatives and activities, the Centre expressed its appreciation for the collaboration of ICCROM in the development of this Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage which was fully endorsed by the Centre. ICCROM’s newly appointed Director-General, Dr. Nicholas Stanley-Price, introduced the Global Training Strategy for World Cultural Heritage and stressed ICCROM’s interest in strengthening its role as an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee. The detailed presentation, made by ICCROM staff Herb Stovel and Nobuko Inaba, emphasized the importance of bringing the 6 year development of the Strategy to a close, given the advent of the periodic reporting process, and its expected strategic outputs for training. The ICCROM presentation covered historical development of the strategy as initially requested by the Bureau in June 1994, a brief review of ICCROM activities in support of the Convention in 2000, and outlined and elaborated on key elements of the proposed strategic approach. XV.4 These key elements included a “framework of principles” developed in expert discussions over several years and used to define a “strategic orientation” for the training strategy, priority actions within international strategies and programmes, indicative areas of action within regional strategies and programmes, a funding and implementation strategy and particular roles and responsibilities within a World Heritage training system. The funding and implementation strategy proposed included administrative measures (enhancing use of internal assessment and periodic reporting review tools), measures concerning more focussed use of the World Heritage Fund, and measures to attract and guide external funding. The presentation of roles and responsibilities within an overall World Heritage training system elaborated on the role assigned to ICCROM as “priority partner in training” by the Committee in 1996, stressing ICCROM’s co-ordination role, its quality control role, its

role as builder of networks for World Heritage training, its role in development of training materials for delivery by others, and the importance of its role in developing training proposals with the World Heritage Centre. XV.5 The delegates strongly welcomed the Strategy for providing a coherent framework, for emphasizing the link to periodic reporting and for stressing the importance of the practical guidelines. Some Delegates expressed a feeling that the existence of three different documents (two working documents and one information document) rather than a consolidated one, caused confusion. The Committee asked the Secretariat and ICCROM to produce one integrated document for consideration by the Bureau at the twenty-fifth session. XV.6 The Committee, upon reviewing the actions proposed by the Centre in document CONF/ 204/18, adopted the following: �� For institutional teaching: continue identification

of partners in collaboration with ICCROM, ICOMOS and relevant divisions of UNESCO; streamline Forum UNESCO network and activities;

�� For individual scholarships and study tour

opportunities: joint evaluation by ICCROM-World Heritage Centre on UNESCO fellowship programme and solicit more financial contributions and institutional partnerships.

�� For inventory of cultural resources and mapping: to

establish modalities of cooperation with international, regional and bilateral development cooperation agencies

�� For conservation of historic monuments and

archaeological sites: in cooperation with national conservation agencies, ICCROM, UNESCO, Nordic World Heritage Office (NWHO), Nara Cultural Heritage Protection Office (ACCU/Nara) and Forum UNESCO, to develop a more systematic approach to identify on-site, on-the-job training opportunities at World Heritage Sites; develop a proposal for an international or regional UNESCO-ICCROM recognized diploma or certificate which would include on-site training towards these diplomas, and, to identify means to ensure multi-year funding to stabilize such training courses.

XV.7 The Committee, upon examining the proposed Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage adopted the following priority actions: Strategic orientation �� To be most effective, a global training strategy must

be composed of complementary regional training strategies. Towards this end, continuing attention must be given to monitoring, updating and refining regional training strategies.

�� Training for World Heritage is best improved by strengthening provisions for conservation training at all levels and in all related disciplines globally. Training programmes specifically set up to focus on

63

World Heritage site conservation may cause unnecessarily duplication of effort. Rather, existing and new conservation training programmes should be encouraged to integrate World Heritage components and perspectives.

�� The Committee, Centre, and Advisory Bodies should ensure appropriate monitoring and follow-up of training activities carried out within the Global Training Strategy. Information on training activities should be archived as a planning tool for future activities.·

�� The “checklist and criteria for review of requests of training assistance” developed by ICCROM should be reviewed and adopted by the Committee to ensure consistent and transparent review of training requests.

�� The “framework of principles” to guide planning and development of proactive training initiatives should be reviewed and adopted by the Committee.

�� Results of the periodic reporting process should be used to update and adapt, as necessary, the global and regional training strategies.

The Committee should integrate these results into its overall strategic planning process International training perspectives Challenges: �� Training institutions which have already developed

World Heritage components should be utilized by the Committee to the fullest extent possible to deliver training activities.

�� In regions where such specialization does not yet exist, the Committee should encourage leading regional institutions to develop programmes with significant World Heritage focus.

�� Training programmes should be linked to the whole process of World Heritage protection including preparation of tentative lists, nominations and monitoring after inscription.

�� Although specific needs can best be addressed by looking at the local and regional context, the exchange of information and practices at the international level plays an important development and testing role for new approaches and ideas.

Priority Actions �� Establishment of a network of existing

international/regional/national training institutions concerned with World Heritage.

�� Development of a series of off-the-shelf training modules and supporting materials to improve implementation of the Convention, particularly in relation to preparing nominations and to carrying out periodic reporting and related state of conservation monitoring for sites.

�� Continued development of the Management Guidelines series published by ICCROM, UNESCO, and ICOMOS to include areas not yet covered (e.g., archaeological sites).

�� Development of simplified “technical notes” and advice, linked to the above Management Guidelines series, for site managers.

�� Explore development of a capacity-building programme based on continuing exchange of teams of

professionals, site managers and national decision-makers from “well-represented” and “under-represented” countries, which would treat, in line with regional periodic reporting results, development of draft tentative lists, nominations, state-of-conservation monitoring reports, and analysis of best management practices.

�� Development of trainers' workshops and programmes, intended to strengthen the capacity of training leaders (including site managers) to develop and deliver needed training for improved implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Natural Heritage XV.8 The Secretariat introduced the natural heritage component of the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 as reported on pages 13 - 15 of that document. XV.9 IUCN agreed with the five points of action recommended by the Secretariat for adoption by the Committee. IUCN considered training to be an important tool for achieving the goals and objectives of the Convention and informed the Committee that it will start discussions with the Centre to find better ways to implement the Strategic Action Plan for Training Specialists in Natural Heritage as adopted by the eighteenth session of the Committee (Berlin, 1995). IUCN also offered to assist the Committee and the Centre to elaborate a Global Training Strategy for Natural Heritage similar to that developed by ICCROM for cultural heritage. XV.10 The Delegate of Canada encouraged the Committee and the Centre to accept the offer of IUCN to develop Global Training Strategy for Natural Heritage. If developed, this natural heritage component, together with that developed by ICCROM for cultural heritage, will constitute a complete training strategy for the Convention. The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with IUCN and other relevant partners in order to: �� Re-inform States Parties of the Strategic Action Plan

for Training in the field of Natural Heritage adopted by the Committee in 1995, stressing that the Plan will determine the activities eligible for financial support from the World Heritage Fund beginning from 2001;

�� Communicate with Regional Training Institutes such as Mweka College, Tanzania and Garoua College, Cameroon, to review the annual fellowship-support granted to them so far and initiate negotiations with them as well as with other new, training institutes in Africa to redesign training support to African site personnel using World Heritage Regional Training Workshops as recommended by Action 2 of the Plan that could benefit a larger number of personnel each year;

�� Review links between the Strategic Action Plan for Training in the field of Natural Heritage and the recommendations of the CONNECT (Capacity Building for Outreach, Natural Heritage Networking, Education, Co-operation and Training) Task Force meeting with a view to design and develop pilot

64

projects and actions which have significance for natural heritage training, education and outreach;

�� Expand partnerships for designing and developing training, educational, networking and outreach actions benefiting World Natural Heritage sites and develop pilot initiatives that could attract financing from both public and private sector sources other than the World Heritage Fund; and

�� Report on measures taken to implement the above-mentioned recommendations, including significant achievements made and difficulties and constraints encountered and proposals for a 3-year work programme, to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.

XV.11 The Chairperson requested that the Centre should also, in accordance with the proposal made by the Delegate of South Africa, place significant emphasis on the Training of Trainers as a way to ensure sustainability of knowledge and skills transfer and a more cost-effective use of the limited resources provided by the World Heritage Fund for training specialists in natural heritage. II. PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT

OF A HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME

The Chairperson referred to document WHC-2000/CONF.204/19 on the Training Strategy: Proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme. The Committee was informed of the background for the Heritage Partnership Programme and the close linkages between this programme and the implementation of the Global Training Strategy. In the ensuing discussions, the Delegate of Hungary also pointed out their interest in developing a broad based partnership related not only to the implementation of the Global Training Strategy but also to other aspects of the implementation of the Convention, such as information management. The Chairperson requested the Hungarian Delegate, in consultations with the Centre and the advisory bodies, to prepare a detailed proposal with a budget breakdown on the implementation of the Heritage Partnership Programme for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. XVI. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA

OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XVI.1 The Committee decided that the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 25 to 30 June 2001. XVI.2 The provisional agenda of this meeting is attached in Annex XIX to this report.

XVII. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XVII.1 The Chairperson recalled that at the earlier sessions, Finland had offered to welcome the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001. Furthermore, he also recalled that Hungary and China had proposed to host the Committee in 2002 and 2003 respectively. XVII.2 The Delegate of Finland confirmed that her Government would have the honour of hosting in Helsinki the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau from 7 to 8 December 2001 and the twenty-fifth session of the Committee from 11 to 16 December 2001. XVII.3 A presentation on the World Heritage sites and the City of Helsinki was made, and the Delegate informed the Committee that an Internet site has been established to provide information on the organization of these meetings (www.minedu.fi/minedu/whmeeting). XVIII. OTHER BUSINESS XVIII.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Observer of Germany wished to seek clarification concerning the States Parties to the Convention, not members of the Committee, attending the session of the Bureau and the Committee. The Chairperson responded that according to Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, "States Parties to the Convention which are not members of the Committee" may attend the sessions of the Committee as observers. They shall be consulted by the Committee on all matters in respect of which consultation is prescribed by the Convention. XVIII.2 Concerning the document sent by Hungary relating to its Vision of the Implementation of the Convention, the Chairperson proposed that this document be studied and transmitted for discussion at the next session of the Committee. XVIII.3 Given the various issues relating to the application of cultural criterion (vi), the Chairperson informed the Committee that a meeting to discuss all criteria would be held in Paris during the next Bureau session. XVIII.4 The Delegate of Australia then paid tribute to Mr Bing Lucas for his contribution to the work of the Committee since its creation and drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that this session would be the last one in which Mr Lucas would participate with IUCN. The members of the Committee as well as the Secretariat warmly applauded Mr Lucas. XIX. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION XIX.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr. Francesco Bandarin, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the Traditional Owners for their participation and the Australian authorities for having organized and provided the facilities for this session. He thanked the Chairperson and all delegates for their

65

dedication to World Heritage and for a new spirit towards the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention. He also thanked his colleagues for their support. He highlighted the progress achieved in particular with regard to the new calendar, the improved documentation and the positive exchange between the Secretariat and the Committee. XIX.2 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee expressed his gratitude to the Rapporteur for his excellent work and thanked his predecessor, Mr A. Touri (Morocco) for the guidance provided. He commended the Secretariats of both UNESCO and Environment Australia for their hard work, all members of the Committee and the advisory bodies for their constructive participation in the debates as well as the interpreters for their support. He recalled progress made with the new cycle, the budget approved and the inscription of a record number of 61 new nominations. He reminded the Committee of the work to be achieved in 2001 with a Bureau meeting in Paris, a Committee meeting in Finland as well as the thirteenth session of the General Assembly of States Parties. XIX.3 On behalf of all members of the Committee and participants, the Delgate of Morocco, Mr Touri, thanked the Chairperson for the results achieved during the twenty-fourth session, noting in particular his flexible management style which facilitated new ideas that were brought forward as part of the reform process launched. He also highlighted the role of the new Director of the World Heritage Centre as Secretary of the Committee, to implement the decisions of the Committee during the year 2001. He also thanked Ms. Lammila (Finland), Mr. Keeffe (Australia) and Mr. Munjeri (Zimbabwe), the three Rapporteurs of the Bureau and Committee sessions in the year 2000. He thanked the Australian authorities and traditional owners for their hospitality and for providing excellent facilities for the session. XIX.4 The Delegate of Finland thanked the Australian Government for having provided such a good model for a Committee session and invited the Committee to the twenty-fifth session which would be held in her country in 2001. XIX.5 The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee closed.

67

ANNEX I / ANNEXE I

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE/ COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

Twenty-fourth session/ Vingt-quatrième session

Cairns, Australia / Cairns, Australie

27 November - 2 December 2000 / 27 novembre - 2 décembre 2000 ___________

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

I. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE / ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE Senator the Hon Robert HILL Minister for the Environment and Heritage Suite MG 68, Ministerial Wing, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Mr Roger BEALE AM Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Matthew PEEK Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75015 PARIS FRANCE Mr Howard BAMSEY Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Peter KING Chair, Australian Heritage Commission Australian Heritage Commission GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Dr Arthur JOHNSTON Supervising Scientist Office of the Supervising Scientist GPO Box 461 Darwin NT 0801 Mr Bruce LEAVER First Assistant Secretary, Australian and World Heritage Division Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Mr Kevin KEEFFE Assistant Secretary World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Peter WELLINGS Assistant Secretary, Parks Australia North Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 1260 Darwin NT 0801 Mr David WALKER Director International Section, World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Daryl KING Director Intergovernmental Section World Heritage Branch Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Stuart CHAPE Asia-Pacific Focal Coordinator World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Matt BROWN Senior Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage Suite MG 68, Ministerial Wing, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Mr Atticus FLEMING Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage Suite MG 68, Ministerial Wing, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

68

Dr Ian MCPHAIL Executive Director, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Queensland Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service 160 Ann St Brisbane QLD 4000 Mr Peter COCHRANE Director, National Parks GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 The Hon Virginia CHADWICK Chair, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379, Townsville Qld 4810 Professor Tor HUNDLOE Chair, Wet Tropics Management Authority PO Box 2050 Cairns QLD 4870 Official Australian State Party Observers – Representatives from Australian World Heritage Area Management Bodies Mr Brian CLARK District Ranger Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte) South East Region Dept of Environment & Heritage PO Box 134 NARACOORTE SA 5271 Mr Steven BOURNE Guide, Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte) South East Region Dept of Environment & Heritage PO Box 134 NARACOORTE SA 5271 Ms Julia AUSTIN Media and PR Manager Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Senator Nick BOLKUS Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600 Hon. Dr Barry JONES Board Chairman CRC for Coastal Zone Estuary and Waterway Management PORT ARTHUR TAS Mr Peter F WILLIAMS General Manager Parks and Wildlife Division Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment GPO Box 44A HOBART TAS 7001

Mr Clive COOK Regional Service Director Northern Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Mr Russell WATKINSON Executive Director Wet Tropics Management Agency PO Box 2050 CAIRNS QLD 4870 Mr Vince MUNDRABY Chairperson Bama Rainforest Aboriginal Association (Bama Wabu) 2/23 Scott St CAIRNS QLD 4870 Mr Archie TANNA Bama Rainforest Aboriginal Association (Bama Wabu) 2/23 Scott St CAIRNS QLD 4870 Mr Greg CROFT NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 152 Horton Street PO Box 61 PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444 Mr Bob CONROY NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 24 Kennedy Pl BAYVIEW NSW 2114 Mr Doug WILLIAMS Executive Officer Willandra Lakes Region WHA c/o NSW Parks & Wildlife Service PO Box 318 BURONGA NSW 2739 Mr Brian GILLIGAN Director-General NSW Parks & Wildlife Service PO Box 1967 HURSTVILLE NSW 2220 Ms Janet CAVANAUGH Executive Officer Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia NSW Parks & Wildlife Service PO Box 97 GRAFTON NSW 2460 Mr Gregor MANSON Executive Director Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

69

Mr Jon DAY Director, Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Mr John TANZER Executive Director Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810 Mr Lachlan FULLERTON Fraser Island Manager Great Sandy Region Qld Parks & Wildlife Service PO Box 101 MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650 Ms Karen JACOBSON Special Interest Tourism Products Team Sport and Tourism Division Department of Industry, Science and Resources GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 Mr Kim HILL ATSIC Commissioner National Policy Office P.O Box 17 WODEN ACT 2606 Mr Peter OGILVIE Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services Po Box 155 BRISBANE QLD 4000 Ms Gabrielle O’LOUGHLIN Executive Officer, Kakadu National Park Board of Management PO Box 71 JABIRU NT 0886 Ms Sandra Mc GREGOR Member, Kakadu National Park Board of Management PO Box 71 JABIRU NT 0886 Mr Steve WILLIKA Member, Kakadu National Park Board of Management PO Box 71 JABIRU NT 0886 Mr Terry O'SHANE Chairman A.T.S.I.C. Regional Council 111 Grafton Street CAIRNS QLD 4870

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE S. Exc. M. Hubert VAN HOUTTE Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente de la Belgique auprès de l'UNESCO Villa de Saxe 75007 PARIS M. Edgard GOEDLEVEN Chef de Division Ministère de la Communauté Flamande Département de l'Environnement et de l'Infrastructure Administration de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et des Monuments et Sites Division des Monuments et Sites Graaf de Ferraris-gebouw Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 7 1000 BRUXELLES Mme S. VAN AERSCHOT-VAN HAEVERBEECK Adjoint du Directeur Ministère de la Communauté Flamande Département de l'Environnement et de l'Infrastructure Administration de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et des Monuments et Sites Division des Monuments et Sites Waaistraat 1 3000 LEUVEN M. Philippe THIERY Directeur Service des Monuments et Sites Région de Bruxelles-Capitale Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale Rue du Progres, 80/1 B - 1030 BRUXELLES M. André MATTHYS Inspecteur général Ministère de la Région wallonne Direction générale de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine Division du Patrimoine Rue des Brigades d'Irlande 1 B-5100 JAMBES Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH Relations internationales Ministère de la Région wallonne Direction générale de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine Division du Patrimoine p/a 30 avenue Junot F-75018 PARIS

70

BENIN M. Isidore MONSI Premier conseiller Délégation permanente de la République du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO 1, rue Miollis 75015 PARIS FRANCE M. Jules BOCCO Directeur du patrimoine culturel BP 120, COTONOU CANADA Dr Christina CAMERON Director General National Historic Sites Parks Canada 25 Eddy Street HULL QUÉBEC K1A 0M5 Mr Murray MCCOMB Manager Special Projects National Parks Directorate Parks Canada 25 Eddy Street HULL QUÉBEC K1A 0M5 Mme Gisèle CANTIN Affaires internationales Parcs Canada 25, rue Eddy HULL QUÉBEC K1A 0M5 Mr Ernie GLADSTONE Development Manager Gwaii Haanas P.O. Box 37 QUEEN CHARLOTTE, BC VOT 150 Ms Josie WENINGER Field Unit Superintendent Wood Buffalo National Park Parks Canada P.O. Box 750 FORT SMITH North West Territories XOE OPO CHINA/CHINE Mr GUO Zhan Director of Division State Administration of Cultural Heritage 29 Wusi Street BEIJING 10009

Mr DU Yue Directeur de Division Chef de Délégation 37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District BEIJING 100816 Ms ZUO Xiaoping, Deputy Director of Division, Ministry of Construction 9 San Li He Road BEIJING 100835 Mr XU Wentao Director , Suzhou Municipal Bureau of Parks and Gardens 37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District BEIJING 100816 Mr HOU Xiong fei Chairman, Dujiangyan Municipal People's Congress Ruilan Street DUJIANGYAN Mr LI Wangui Director, Management Office of Eastern Qing Tombs Zun Hua County HEBEI Mr DENG Chonghui Director Dujiangyan Tourism Management Committee Beije Dujiangyan 611830 SICHUAN Mr LAI Xuebo English interpreter Sichuan Foreign Affairs Office, No. 100, Dongshanduan, Yihuanlu CHENGDU SICHUAN Mr XU Jin Deputy Director Chengdu Planning Commission, 16, Xiyujie CHENGDU SICHUAN Mr NIU Min Vice Mayor Dujiangyan Municipal People’s Government, DUJIANGYAN SICHUAN Mr LIU Dian-Li Mayor of Luo Yang City LUO YANG CITY Mr LIU Jing-Lung Director of the Institute of Lumen Grottos, LUO YANG CITY Mr MA Tianzen Director of the Bureau of Cultural Property of Luo Yang City LUO YANG CITY

71

COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE H.E. Mr Augusto GALAN SARMIENTO Ambassadeur Délegué Permanent de Colombie auprès de UNESCO 1, rue Miollis PARIS 75015 FRANCE Ms Katya GONZALEZ Viceministra de Cultura Cra 8 No 69-60 BOGOTA Ms María Fernanda ACOSTA CONVERS Directora Territorial Costa Atlántica Unidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales Ministerio del Medio Ambiente Calle 15 No. 21-63 SANTA MARTA CUBA Dra Marta ARJONA PEREZ Presidenta Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural Ministerio de Cultura Calle 4 esq. a 13 Vedado LA HABANA Mr Antonio PERERA Director. Centro Nacional de Areas Protegidas Calle 18A #4114 entre 41 y 47 11300 Miramar Playa LA HABANA ECUADOR/EQUATEUR Mr Hernán Crespo TORAL Arquitecto Instituto Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural Ministerio de Eduación y Cultura La Cumbre 336 y Carlos Montúfar QUITO 32 Mr Alfredo CARRASCO V. Coordinador Ejecutivo de la Unidad Galápagos Ministerio del Ambiente P.O.Box 1722 20109 QUITO EGYPT/EGYPTE Dr Mohamed Abdel MAKSOUD General Director of Egyptian Antiquities ISMAILIA EL Kantara East

FINLAND/FINLANDE H.E. Ms Taina KIEKKO Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO 1, rue Miollis, Bureau M3.35 F-75732 PARIS Cedex 15 FRANCE Mr Henrik LILIUS Director General National Board of Antiquities P.O.Box 913 FIN-00101 HELSINKI Mr Jukka-Pekka FLANDER Cheaf Inspector Ministry of the Environment P.O.Box 380 FIN-00131 HELSINKI Ms Päivi SALONEN Senior Advisor Ministry of Education P.O.Box 293 FIN-00171 HELSINKI Ms Margaretha EHRSTRÖM Researcher National Board of Antiquities P.O.Box 913 FIN-00101 HELSINKI Mr Ari MÄKI Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO 1, rue Miollis, Bureau M3.35 F-75732 PARIS Cedex 15 FRANCE Ms Irma-Liisa PERTTUNEN Counsellor Adviser in Cultural Issues Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of Development Co-operation P.O.Box 176 FIN-00161 HELSINKI Ms Leena RINKINEVA Project leader The Kvarken Council Kauppapuistikko 23A FIN-65100 VAASA FINLAND

72

GREECE/GRECE Mme Hélène METHODIOU Conseiller pour la Culture Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l’UNESCO Maison de l’UNESCO 1, rue Miollis 75732 PARIS Cedex 15 FRANCE Dr Helen PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI Curator of Antiquities National Archaeological Museum Tositsa 1 str. ATHENS 106 82 Ms Maria PSARRA-PAPAGEORGIOU Archaeologist Ministry of Culture 20, Bouboulinas Street ATHENS HUNGARY/HONGRIE Professor Dr Zsolt VISY Deputy State Secretary Ministry of the Cultural Heritage 1077 BUDAPEST Wesslényi u. 20-22 H.E. Ambassador Janos JELEN Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of Culture, Science and Information Nagy Imre ter 4. BUDAPEST H-1027 Dr Janos TARDY Deputy Secretary of State Ministry of the Environment Hungarian Committee of the World Heritage Költo u.21 BUDAPEST, H-1121 ITALY/ITALIE Mr Cons. Mario PANARO Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs DGPCC, Ufficio III piazzale della Farnesina 1 00194 ROMA Dott.ssa Roberta ALBEROTANZA Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs DGPCC, Ufficio III piazzale della Farnesina 1 00194 ROMA Dott.ssa Lisa ZAFFI Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs DGPCC, Ufficio III piazzale della Farnesina 1 00194 ROMA

Dott.ssa Federica MUCCI Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Servizio del Contenzioso Diplomatico piazzale della Farnesina 1 00194 ROMA Arch. Pasquale Bruno MALARA Soprintendente ai Beni Ambientali e Architettonici per il Piemonte Piazza S. Giovanni, 2 I - 10100 Torino Ing. Luciano MARCHETTI Soprintendente ai Beni Ambientali e Architettonici dell'Umbria Via Ulisse Rocchi, 71 I - 06100 Perugia Dr. Valentina LONGO Gabinetto - Servizio Rapporti Internazionali Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali Via del Collegio Romano, 27 I - 00186 Roma MALTA/MALTE H.E Mr Ambassador Joseph LICARI Permanent Delegate to UNESCO 46, rue de Longchamp PARIS 75116 FRANCE Dr Antony PACE Director of Museums 138 Melita Street VALETTA CMR 02 MEXICO/MEXIQUE Sr. Francisco Javier LÓPEZ MORALES Expert Dirección General del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH) Reforma 101 San Angel MEXICO DF CP 01000 Professor Dr Architect Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO UAM-INAH Callejón Ojito No-9 COYOACAN MEXICO D.F. 04320 Mr Tirzo BELTRAN TORRES Counsellor at the Mexican Embassy in Australia 14 Perth Avenue Yarralumla, ACT 2600

73

MOROCCO/MAROC M Abdelaziz TOURI Secrétaire général Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1, Rue Ghandi RABAT S. Exc. Mme Aziza BENNANI Ambassadeur Déléguée permanente Délégation permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO 1, rue Miollis PARIS 75015 Mme Meriem BENHARBIT Chargée de Recherche Ministère de la Culture et de la Comunication 1, Rue Ghandi RABAT M. Driss FASSI Professeur Université Mohamed V de Rabat 14 cité El Khadra GUICH OUDAYAS PORTUGAL Mr Luis Antonio Branco de Pinho LOPES Architect Assessor Principal do Instituto Portugues do Património Cultural Ministerio da Cultura Palacio Nacionalda Asuda 1349 021 LISBOA REPUBLIC OF KOREA/REPUBLIQUE DE COREE Mr KIM Seung-eui Director-General Cultural Affairs Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 77-6 Sejongno Chongnogu SEOUL KIM Jong-Hyuk General Director of Cultural Properties Planning Bureau Cultural Properties Administration Daejon-Government Complex 920 Dunsan-dong Seo-gu DAEJON Mr YOO Jung-hee Minister Embassy of the Republic of Korea to Australia CANBERRA ACT

Mr AHN Seong-doo First Secretary Delegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO 1, rue Miollis, M 3.32 75015 PARIS FRANCE Mr CHUNG Byung-ha Deputy Director, Cultural Cooperation Division Cultural Affairs Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 77-6 Sejongno Chongnogu SEOUL Mr KANG Kyung-Hwan Assistant Director of Cultural Properties Planning Division Cultural Properties Administration Daejon-Government Complex 920 Dunsan-dong Seo-gu DAEJON Mr KIM Bong Gon Senior Researcher National Research Institute of Cultural Properties Chongno-ku Sejongno-1 SEOUL Mr KOH Byong-Ik Chairman of Cultural Properties Committee Cultural Properties Administration Daejon-Government Complex 920 Dunsan-dong Seo-gu DAEJON Mr Hosu JANG Commissioner, Monuments Division Cultural Properties Administration Dunsan-dong Seo-gu DAEJON Mr KWON Huh Korean National Commission for UNESCO C.P.O. Box Central 64 SEOUL SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD H.E Ms Thuthukile SKWEYIVA Ambassador to France Embassy of South Africa 59, Quai d'Orsay PARIS 75007 FRANCE

74

Mr Devandhran MOODLEY Embassy of South Africa 59 Quai D'Orsay 75007 PARIS FRANCE Mr Makgolo MAKGOLO Dept of Environmental Affairs & Tourism P/B x 447 PRETORIA 0001 THAILAND/THAILANDE Professor Dr Adul WICHIENCHAROEN Chairman of the National Committee for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP) 60/1 Rama 6 Rd, Phayathai, Bangkok 10400 Dr Saksit TRIDECH Secretary-General Office of Environment Policy and Planning 60/1 Pibulwattana 7, Phayathai Bangkok 10400 Mr Chatree CHUEYPRASIT Director General Department of Environmental Quality Promotion 60/1 Rama 6 Rd., Phayathai, Bangkok 10400 Mr Arak SUNGHITAKUL Deputy Director General Fine Arts Department Ministry of Education Naprathat Rd. Bangkok 10200

Mr Marit SIRIWAN Senior Environmental Planning Expert Office of Environmental Policy and Planning 60/1 Rama6 Rd, Phayathai Bangkok 10400 Mrs Prasertsuk CHAMORNMARN Secretary, National Committee for the Protection of the World Heritage Office of the Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP) 60/1 Rama 6 Rd., Phayathai, Bangkok 10400 Mr Borvornvate RUNGRUJEE Fine Arts Department Sri Ayutthaya Rd. Dusit Bangkok 10300 Miss Korapin PHAYAKPRAKARN Department of Environmental Policy and Planning 60/1 Rama 6 Rd., Phayathai, Bangkok 10400 ZIMBABWE Mr Dawson MUNJERI Executive Director National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe 107 Rotten Row Box CY 1485 Causeway Harare Brig. Epmarcus KANHANGA Acting Director National Parks, Wildlife Management P.O. Box CY 140 Causeway Harare

II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TIRE CONSULTATIF INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTTY (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM) Dr N.P. STANLEY-PRICE Director - General ICCROM Via di Michele, 13 1-00153 ROMA ITALY Mr Herb STOVEL Programme Director, Heritage Settlements Programme ICCROM Via di Michele, 13 1-00153 ROMA ITALY

Dr Nobuko INABA, Project Manager, Heritage Settlements Programme ICCROM Via di Michele, 13 1-00153 ROMA ITALY Ms Jane LENNON Member of Council ICCROM 11 Joynt Street HAMILTON QLD 4007 AUSTRALIA

75

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/ CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS) M. Henry CLEERE Coordinateur pour le Patrimone mondial ICOMOS 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 Paris, France Mme Regina DURIGHELLO Coordinateur adjoint ICOMOS 49-51 rue de la Fédération PARIS 75015 FRANCE M. Jukka JOKILEHTO Consultant ICOMOS 49-51 rue de la Fédération PARIS 75015 FRANCE

M. Giora SOLAR Délégué Général aux Finances ICOMOS 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 Paris, France M. William LOGAN Chairman ICOMOS Australia Australia ICOMOS inc c/o Faculty of Arts Deakin University BURWOOD VIC 3125 AUSTRALIA

THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/ UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN) Mr David SHEPPARD Head, Programme on Protected Areas IUCN-The World Conservation Union Rue Mauverney 28 CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland Mr Jim THORSELL Senior Advisor World Heritage IUCN Programme on Protected Areas Box 2846 BANFF, ALBERTA, T0L 0C0, Canada Mr Adrian Phillips Vice-Chair World Heritage (incumbent) IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 2 The Old rectory Dumbleton Near Evesham WR 11 6GT, United Kingdom Mr Rolf HOGAN Programme Associate for World Heritage Programme on Protected Areas IUCN-The World Conservation Union Rue Mauverney 28 CH-1196 GLAND SWITZERLAND Mr Bing LUCAS Vice-Chair World Heritage (outgoing) IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 1/268 Main Road, Tawa WELLINGTON 6006 NEW ZEALAND

Ms Pam EISER Executive Officer Australian Committee for IUCN GPO Box 528 725 George Street, Level 5 SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA Mr Marc HOCKINGS Senior Lecturer School of Natural Rural Systems Management The University of Queensland, Gatton GATTON QLD 4343 AUSTRALIA Mr Rodney SHEPPARD IUCN Volunteer 224 Iindah Road Tinana MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650 AUSTRALIA Mr Peter VALENTINE Dept of Geography and Environmental Studies James Cook University of North Queensland Townsville QLD, Australia

76

III. OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS (i) STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/ ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL ANGOLA M. Pedro M. NSINGUI-BARROS Chargé d'Affaires a.i. Délégation de l'Angola auprès de l'UNESCO 1, rue de Miollis 75015 PARIS FRANCE ARGENTINA/ARGENTINE Dr Hugo JURI Minister of Education of Argentina CANBERRA ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA Dr Carlos GUTIERREZ Director Nacional Secretaria de Turismo Suipacha 1111, #21 C1008AAW BUENOS AIRES Ms Liliana BARELA Diector of Heritage State Secretariat for Culture Mr Pablo CANEDO Sécretaire de la Culture Gobierno Provincia de Cordoba H. Yrigoyen 622 5000 CORDOBA Tel : +54 351 433 3425 Ms Maria RICO Directore de Turismo Provincia de San Juan Suipacha 1111, #21 C1008AAW BUENOS AIRES Mr Adolfo SCAGLIONE Director De Tourismo Provincia De La Rioja Suipacha 1111, #21 C1008AAW BUENOS AIRES Mr William SILL Museo De Ciencias Naturais Dominquito 1552 Barrio Smata SAN JUAN 5400 Mr Carlos PERNAUT Arquitecto Comision Nacional de Museos, Monumentos y Lugares Historicos Virrey Del Pino 2632 BUENOS AIRES 1426

Ms Josefina PIANA Directora del Patrimonio Cultural Dirección del Patrimonio Cultural H. Yrigoyen 622 5000 CORDOBA Mr Edgardo J. VENTURINI Architecte chargé du patrimoine touristique Government de Cordoba Tucumán 360 5000 CORDOBA Mr Ariel W. GONZALEZ Secretary of Embassy Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis PARIS 75015 FRANCE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE Mr Hans HORCICKA Director Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture Abteilung IV/3 Schreyvogelgasse 2 A - 1014 WIEN AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN Mr Moukhtarov ROUSTAM Coordinator of Azerbaijan Cultural Heritage Project Ministry of Culture Izmir str 9 370065 BAKU Mr Moustafayev ORKHAN Interpreter Izmir str 9 370065 BAKU BOTSWANA Ms Tickey T. PULE National Museum, Monuments and Art Gallery 331 Independence Avenue Private bag 00114 GABORONE

77

BRAZIL/BRESIL H.E. Mr Antonio DAYRELL DE LIMA Ambassador Embassy of Brazil CANBERRA ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA Ms Vera Cíntia ALVAREZ Head of the Division of Cultural Agreements and Multilateral Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs DAMC/Ministerio dos Relacoes Exteriores, Sala 407 Esplanada dos Ministerios MRE/Brasilia – D.F. Brazil BURKINA FASO Mr Oumarou NAO Directeur du Patrimoine Culture Ministere de la Culture et des Arts 01 BP 2727 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso CAMEROON/CAMEROUN Mr Denis KOULAGNA KOUTOU Direction de la Faune et des Aires Protegees Ministere de l’Environnement et des Forets YAOUNDE CHILE/CHILI Mr Patricio UTRERAS First Secretary Department for Specialized Agencies Ministry of Foreign Affairs Catedral 1158 SANTIAGO FIJI/FIDJI Ms Jiu KUBUABOLA ASPNet National Co-ordinator Ministry of Education Marela House SUVA FRANCE S.Exc. M. Jean MUSITELLI Ambassadeur Délegué permanent Délégation de la France auprès de l'UNESCO 1, rue Miollis 75015 PARIS

Mme Catherine DUMESNIL Conseillère Technique Commission Nationale pour l’UNESCO 57 Bd. des Invalides 75700 PARIS FRANCE GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE Mr Detlev RUNGER First Counsellor Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Canberra 119 Empire Circuit YARRALUMLA ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA Dr Hans CASPARY Curator, State Authority of Rhineland-Palatinate for Preservation of Monuments Schillerstr. 44 55116 MAINZ Prof. Dr Harald PLACHTER Philipps University Marburg, Department of Nature Conservation Faculty of Biology 35032 MARBURG HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE Mons. Tullio POLI Secretariat of State Section for Relation with States 00120 VATICAN CITY Mons. John LENNON 135 Robert Road, Centenary Park, Qld 4869 P.O. Box 41 EDMONTON QLD 4869 AUSTRALIA INDIA/INDE H.E. Ms Neelam D. SABHARWAL Ambassador Permanent Representative of India to UNESCO 1, rue Miollis PARIS 75015 FRANCE ISRAEL S.Exc. M. Arye GABAY Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente d'Israël auprès de l'UNESCO 5, Rue Rabelais Paris 75008 FRANCE

78

Mr Michael TURNER Chair, Israel World Heritage Committee 25, Caspi Street JERUSALEM 93554 JAPAN/JAPON Mr Jinichi MURAKAMI Councillor on Cultural Properties, Agency for Cultural affairs 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO Ms Naomi TAKAHASHI Official, Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division, Cultural Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2-2-1 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO Mr Atsuhiro YOSHINAKA Senior Planning Officer, Protected Area Planning Division, Nature Conservation Bureau, Environment Agency 1-2-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO Ms Tomoka SATOMI Deputy Director, Monuments and Sites Division, Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO Dr Makoto MOTONAKA Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-2-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA, TOKYO Mr Tsuyoshi HIRASAWA Associate Specialiste for Curltural Propterties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO Mr Kazuhiko NISHI Associate Specialist Architecture and other Structures Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO

Ms Kumiko YONEDA Senior Research Scientist Japan Wildlife Research Center 3-10-10 Shitaya, TAITO-KU, TOKYO Mr Koichi YONEMORI Manager, Kagoshima Prefectual Government 10-1 Kamoike shinmachi-Kagoshima Mr Tashikazn TOKONAMI Assistant Director, Kagoshima Prefectual Government 10-1 Kamoike shinmachi-Kagoshima LITHUANIA/LITUANIE Ms Ina MARCIULIONYTE Deputy Minister of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Culture, J.Basanavicius 5, 2001 Vilnius, Lithuania MADAGASCAR Dr RAFOLO ANDRIANAIVOARIVONY Directeur du Centre d'Art et d'Archéologie Université d'Antananarivo P.O Box 4129 101 Antananarivo Madagascar MALAYSIA/ MALAISIE Mr Datuk Lamri ALI Director of Sabah Parks The Sabah Parks Post Office Box 10626 88806 Kota Kinabalu Sabah, MALAYSIA Mr Paul BASINTAL Assistant Director The Sabah Parks Post Office Box 10626 88806 Kota Kinabalu Sabah, MALAYSIA Mr Desmond Dick COTTER Assistant Director National Parks and Wildlife Division Forest Department Wisma Sumber Alam Petra Jaya, Kuching, Sarawak, MALAYSIA Ms Sharifah ZAINAH Ministry of Culture, Art & Tourism Malaysia

79

Mr Mohanan NAIR Malaysian National Commission for UNESCO Kuala Lumpur Mr Ayob TAMRIN Department of Museums and Antiquities Talan Damansara 50566 Kuala Lumpur Mr Michael CHILCOTT Mr Walter KOHLI MONGOLIA/MONGOLIE Mr Norov URTNASAN Deputy Director Public Administration, Cooperation Department Ministry of Science, Technology, Education and Culture Government Building III Baga toiruu 44 MOSTEC, Ulaanbaatar NEPAL H.E. Mr Indra BAHADUR SINGH Royal Nepalese Ambassador to France and Permanent Delegation of Nepal to UNESCO 7 Rue Alberic Magnard 75016 Paris Dr Shaphalya AMATYA Joint Secretary Ministry of Culture, Tourism, Civil Aviation NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS Dr. Robert DE JONG Netherlands Department of Conservation Broederplein 41, 3703 CD Zeist P.O. Box 1001 3700 BA Zeist Ms Sabine GIMBRERE Ministry of Culture P.O. Box 25000 2700 HZ Zoetermeer NEW ZEALAND/NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Mr Murray REEDY Technical Support Manager West Coast Conservancy Department of Conservation Private Bag Hokitika, New Zealand

NORWAY/NORVEGE Ms Kris ENDRESSEN Director Nordic World Heritage Office Dronningenst, 13, Dep. OSLO Mr Einar HOLTANE Deputy Director General Ministry of Environment P.O. Box 8013 Dep. N-0030 OSLO OMAN Mr Salim M. MAHRUQI Chief of the Minister's Office Ministry of Information PO Box 600, Muscat 113 MUSCAT Prof. M. JANSEN Member of the Omani Advisory Committee for Archeology Surveys PAPUA NEW GUINEA/ PAPOUASIE-NOUVELLE-GUINEE Mr Soroi MAREPO EOE Director of the National Museum and Art Gallery P.O. Box 5560 Boroko Mr Herman MANDUI Archaeologist Papua New Guinea National Museum PO Box 5560 Boroko NCD 121 Mr ARAHO Chief Curator Prehistory PO Box 5560 Boroko, NCD Ms Regina KATI Papua New Guinea National Commission for UNESCO Department of Education, PSA HAUS PO BOX 446 Port Moresby PERU/PEROU Mr Manuel SOAREZ Minister Counselor Embassy of Peru in Australia – Canberra 40 Brisbane Av. Barton, Canberra, Act Australia

80

PHILIPPINES H.E. Mr Hector VILLARROEL Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Philippine Delegation to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75015 Paris, France Mr Augusto VILLALON Architect Member, UNESCO National Commission 107 Wilson Circle San Juan 1500 M. Manila Ms Jeanette D. TUASON Deputy Executive Director, UNACOM DFA Building 23300 Roxas Boulevard PASAY CITY POLAND/POLOGNE Mr Dariusz CHMIEL Consul Consulate-General of the Republic of Poland in Sydney 10 Trelawney Str. 2025 Woolahra, NSW AUSTRALIA RUSSIAN FEDERATION/ FEDERATION DE RUSSIE Mr Alexei BOUTORINE World Natural Heritage project coordinator National WH Committee Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO Greenpeace Russia N. Bashilovka St. 6 GSP - 4, Moscow, Russia 101428 Mr Rafael VALEEV Vice Minister of Culture of Tatarstan Liberty Square 420014 Kazan Mr Igor MITICHKIN Deputy Director State Historic Museum 1-2 Red Square 103012 Moscow Mr Kamil ISKHAKOV Mayor of the City of Kazan Kazan City Administration 1, Kremlin Street 420014 Kazan Mr Roustam ZABIROV Chief Architect of Kazan Kremlin Dostoevski, 53-177 420043 Kazan

SAUDIA ARABIA/ ARABIE SAOUDITE Dr Abu Al Hassan HUSSEIN PO Box 53598 Riyadh 11593 Mr Abdul HAMEED ALHASHASH Damman SLOVAKIA/SLOVAQUIE Dr Josef KLINDA Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic Namestie I. Stura 1 Bratislava 812 35 BRATISLAVA Ms Katarina NOVAKOVA Slovak Cave’s Administrations Liptovsky Mikulas, 031 01 Hodjova 11 03101 LIPTOVSKY-MIKULAS Dr Tamas DÖMENY Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic Na’mestie l Stura 812 35 BRATISLAVA Mr Jozef HLAVAC Slovak Cave’s Administrations Liptovsky’ Hikula’s Mr Miroslav TONCIK Slovak Environmental Agency Banska’ Bystrica, Tajouske’ho SPAIN/ESPAGNE Mr Luis LAFUENTE BADANERO Sub. Grl. Protección Patrimonio Histórico, Ministry of Culture Plaza del Rey 1 Madrid Dr Rafael RODRIGUEZ-PONGA Director General Relaciones Culturales Ministry of Foreign Affairs c/ General Pardinas 55 Madrid Sra. Dª ASCENSIÓN FIGUERES GÓRRIZ Subsecretaria de la Consejería de Cultura y Educación del Gobierno Valenciano Avda. de Campanar, 32 46015 VALENCIA

81

Mr Francisco Miguel Castro ALLEGUE Subdirector Xeral proteccion Patrimonio Consellería de Cultura, Communication social & Turismo da Xunta de Galicia Edificio Administrativo de la Xunta de Galicia San Caetano s/n Santiago de Compostela Mr Felip FONT DE RUBINAT Delegat Cultura Tarragona Catalonia C/ Major 14. 43003 Tarragona Mr Ricardo MAR Museo Historia Tarragona Pza Bonsucces No. 1-3-1a Barcelona Mr Luis Pablo MARTINEZ SANMARTINO Inspector of Heritage Generalidat Valenciana Calle Carratala 47 03007-Alicante Mr Ferran MARTINIEZ MORATA Delegation LLEIDA-BOI C/ Carme, 27 Ms Mercedes MARTORELL COMAS Member of City Council of Tarragona Rambla Nova 41, 2 Tarragona Mr Poncio MASCARO FORCADO General Secretary of Council City of Tarragona Plaza de le Fuente, no. 1 Mr Emilio MATEU MORELLU Member of the Council City of Taragona Plaza de la Fuente, no. 1 Mr Santiago MIRET Delegation LLEIDA-BOI C/ Carme, 27 Mr Enrique PINEDA Public Officer City Hall of Elche Plaza de Baix, S/N E-03202 Ms Carmen POLO Delegation LLEIDA-BOI C/ Carme, 27 Mr Josep PONT Delegation LLEIDA-BOI C/ Carme, 27 Mr Ramon TEN CARNE Chief Service D’Archaeologie/Catalonia Portaferrissa 1

Mr Albert VALLVE Member of the City Council of Tarragona Plaza de la Fuente, no. 1 Tarragona Mr Francesco VIDAL I CODINA Delegat Cultura LLEIDA Govern Catalan Rumbla ARGO 8, LLEIDA SWEDEN/SUEDE Mr Hans ENFLO Deputy Director Kulturdepartementet / Ministry of Culture S-103 33 Stockholm Ms Birgitta HOBERG International Office National Heritage Board P.O. Box 5405 11484 Stockholm Mr Rolf LÖFGREN Principal adm.officer Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 106 48 Stockholm Ms Christina LINDAHL Principal Administrative Officer Swedish Environmental Protection Agency S-106 48 STOCKHOLM Mr Mats HENRIKSSON County Architect County Administration of Västernorrland SE-871 86 Härnösand Mr Curt FREDÉN Senior state geologist Geological survey of Sweden Box 670 751 28 Uppsala Mr Mats-Rune BERGSTROEM Ministry of Culture Stockholm Ms Helena LAGER Kalmar County Administration KALMAR Ms Ann MOREAU Senior Antiquarian Kalmar County Administration KALMAR Ms Annigun WEDIN Kalmar County Administration KALMAR

82

Ms Saga SIGVARDSSON Municipal Comissioner Mörbylånga Municipality Mr Johan DANIELSSON President, Swedish Federation of Farmers Risinge 38062 Mörbylånga Ms Britt-Marie HAMMARSKIÖLD Former Regional Inspector of Cultural Heritage ODENGATAN 2 39233 KALMAR SWITZERLAND/SUISSE S.E. Mme Sylvie MATTEUCCI Ambassadeur de la Suisse en Nouvelle-Zelande 22 Panama Street Wellington, New Zealand Ms Francesca GEMNETTI Présidente de la Commission nationale suisse pour l'UNESCO Via Nizzola 4 CH-6501 Bellinzona TURKEY/TURQUIE Ms. Mine KANGAL General Directorate for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Proprerties Turkish Ministry of Culture 06100 Ulus/ Ankara UGANDA/OUGANDA Mr Moses Mapesa WAFULA Deputy Director Field Operations Uganda Wildlife Authority P. O. Box 3530 Kampala UNITED KINGDOM/ ROYAUME-UNI H.E Mr David STANTON Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO 1 rue Miollis 75015 Paris Mr Nigel PITTMAN Head of Buildings, Monuments and Sites Division Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH Dr Christopher YOUNG Head of World Heritage and International Policy English Heritage 23 Savile Row London W1X 1AB

Dr Anthony WEIGHELL Earth Science and Coastal Advisor Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY Dr Clive GRACE Chief Executive Torfaen County Borough Council Civic Centre Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB Councillor Bob WELLINGTON Deputy Leader of Torfaen County Borough Council Civic Centre Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB Mr John RODGER Blaenavon Heritage Project Co-ordinator Torfaen County Borough Council Civic Centre Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA/ REPUBLIQUE-UNIE DE TANZANIE Mr Ali Khalil MIRZA Principal Secretary Ministry of Water, Construction, Energy, Lands and Environment P.O. Box 238 Zanzibar Mr Omar Dadi SHAJACK Principal Secretary Ministry of Culture, Information and Tourism. P. O. Box 772 Zanzibar Mr Mwalim Ali MWALIM Acting Director General Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STCDA) P.O. Box 4233 Zanzibar Mr Hamad OMAR Director Department of Archives, Museum and Monuments P.O. Box 116 Zanzibar - Tanzania Mr Issa SARBOKO MAKARANI Director of Master Plan and Implementation Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STCDA) P.O. Box 4233 Zanzibar

83

Prof. Abdul SHARIFF Historian Curator of National Museum Department of Archives, Museum and Monuments P.O. Box 116 Zanzibar - Tanzania Mr January FUSSI Director of Planning and Administration Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STCDA) P.O. Box 4233 Zanzibar Mr Sheha JUMA MJAJA National Coordinator Sustainable Zanzibar Project P.O. 4240 Zanzibar - Tanzania Ms Fatma ISSA KARA Architect P.O. Box 2089 Zanzibar - Tanzania Ms Shinuna KARUME Programme Officer Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority (STCDA) P.O. Box 4233 Zanzibar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE Mr Raymond E. WANNER Bureau of International Organisation Affairs Department of State 2001 C Street NW Washington DC 20520 Official United States Observers: Unites States House of Representatives Committee on Resources Mr Kurt CHRISTENSEN Legistalive Staff 1324 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20515 Mr John RISHEL Legistalive Staff 1324 Longworth House Office Building Washington DC 20515 United States Senate Ms Kelly JOHNSON Senior Counsel. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Washington DC 20150

Mr Dan WHITING Office of the Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate Washington DC 20510 UZBEKISTAN/OUZBEKISTAN Mr Bakhodir ABDURAKHIMOV Deputy Minister for Cultural Affairs Ministry for Cultural Affairs 30, Navoi str., Tashkent, Uzbekistan Mr Djakhangir SAGDULLAEV Deputy Head of International Relations Department Ministry of Cultural Affairs 30, Navoi str., Tashkent, Uzbekistan VENEZUELA H.E. Mr Leonel VIVAS Ambassador of Venezuela to Australia Canberra, ACT Mr Javier DIAZ First Secretary Permanent Delegation to UNESCO 1 Rue Miollis Paris 75007 Prof. Anna Maria NARIN Instituto del Patrimonio Mundial Universidad Central de Venezuela Biblioteca central ,Piso 92 Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas Patrimonio Caracas 1060A Ms Angela RODRIGUEZ Instituto del Patrimonio Mundial Universidad Central de Venezuela Biblioteca central ,Piso 92 Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas Patrimonio Caracas 1060A VIET NAM Mr Nguyen VAN TUAN Head of Halong Bay Management Department, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam Address: 86 Le Thanh Tong Street, Halong City, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam Dr Amareswar GALLA Principal Technical Adviser Ha Long Bay Management Department, Vietnam C/o P.O. Box 3175, Manuka, ACT2603 Australia Dr Truong Quoc BINH Deputy Director General Ministery of Culture and Information 51 Ngo Quyen Hanoi

84

YEMEN Mr Mohammed JAGHMAN President General Organisation for the Preservation of Historic Cities of Yemen (GOPHCY) P.O. BOX. 960 Sana'a - Yemen

(ii) OTHER OBSERVERS/AUTRES OBSERVATEURS PERMANENT MISSION OF PALESTINE TO UNESCO/MISSION PERMANENTE D'OBSERVATION DE LA PALESTINE AUPRES DE L'UNESCO S.E. M Ahmad ABDELRAZEK Ambassadeur, Observateur Permanent

SAMOA Mr Livi TANUUASA Associated Schools Project Coordinator Apia, SAMOA

(iii) INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ ORGANISATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONALES INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE [ICSU INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL - KAKADU] Prof. William Brian WILKINSON 17/18 Union St Ramsbury, Wiltshire UK SN8 2PR ORGANIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES (OWHC)/ORGANISATION DES VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL (OVPM) Dr Siri MYRVOLL Secretary General to OWHC 15 Rue Saint-Nicolas, QUEBEC Canada

Mr Denis RICARD Former Secretary General to the OWHC 15, St-Nicolas QUEBEC SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (SPREP) Mr Sam SESEGA Action Strategy Coordinator South Pacific Regional Environment Programme P.O. Box 240 Apia Samoa

(iv) NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES ABORIGINAL & TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION Mr Wieslaw Lichacz Senior Policy Adviser P.O. Box 17 Woden Act 2606 Australia AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION Mr Dave SWEENEY 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy Victoria, 3065 Australia

AUSTRALIAN RAINFOREST CONSERVATION SOCIETY Mr Gavan MCFADZEAN 16 Colorado Avenue Bardon Australia Mr Lyndon SCHNEIDER Campaigner 16 Colorado Ave. Bardon Australia

BAMA WABU ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION Ms Kyle Pursche 3/23 Scott St Cairns Australia CENTRE SIMON WIESENTHAL EUROPE Dr Shimon Samuels Director for International Liaison 64, avenue Marceau 75008 Paris France

85

THE COLONG FOUNDATION FOR WILDERNESS LTD (AUSTRALIA) Mr Keith Muir Director Level 2, 362 Kent Street, Sydney 2000, Australia CRC TOURISM/SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY Ms Joanne CARMODY 96 Pacific Parade Bilinga 4225 Australia THE ENVIRONMENT CENTER NT INC. (AUSTRALIA) Mr Mark Wakeham Coordinator GPO BOX 2120 Darwin NT 0801 Unit 5/98 Wood St DARWIN NT 0800 Australia ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDER’S OFFICE OF NORTHERN QUEENSLAND INC. Ms Joanna Cull Solicitor First floor Corner Grove & Sheridan Street P.O. Box 854 N North Cairns 4870 Australia Mr Henry Boer 196 Sheridan Street Cairns 4870 Australia Mr David HAIGH 196 Sheridan St Cairns 4870 Australia FRASER ISLAND DEFENDERS ORGANIZATION Mr John Sinclair P.O . Box 71, Gladesville, NSW, 1675

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA Ms Loretta O’Brien P.O. BOX 222 Fitzroy, 3065 Australia Mr Gavin Mark MUDD P.O. BOX 222 Fitzroy, 3065 Australia Ms Rebecca DUFFY P.O. BOX 222 Fitzroy, 3065 Australia FRIENDS OF THE EARTH JAPAN Mr Komei Hosokawa 2F, 3-17-24 Mejiro, Tokyo 171-0031 Japan GIMY WALUBARA YIDINJI ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATION Mr Seith FOURMILE Po Box 1805, Cairns, QLD 4870 Australia GUNDJEHMI ARBORIGINAL CORPORATION Ms Yvonne MARGARULA Chairperson P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Mr Justin O’BRIEN Administration Manager P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Ms Jacqui KATONA Executive Officer P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Ms Christine CHRISTOPHERSEN Research Consultant P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia

Mr Stuart GARDELL Field Officer P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Ms Valerie BALMOORE Member P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Mr Scott ALDERSON Member P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia Mr Leigh Bruce TILMOUTH Member P.O Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Ms Carla MAURANO Consultant International Centre for Cultural Landscapes Via Selva 7 84043 Agropl (SA) SALERNO Italy INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS (IFLA) Dr h. c. Hans DORN Landscape Architect BDLA Holbeinstrasse 17 D-60596 Frankfurt / Main Germany ORGANISATION FOR MUSEUMS, MONUMENTS AND SITES OF AFRICA (OMMSA) Kwasi MYLES Secretary-General NORTH QUEENSLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL Mr Jeremy TAGER 364 Flinders Mall Townsville, Qld 4810 Australia

86

QUEENSLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL Kerryn O’Connor 2/111 Hardgrave Rd, West End Brisbane Qld 4101 Australia UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION Mr Nicholas Lapham Senior Program Officer 1301 Conneticut Avenue NW Washington DC 20036 United States of America VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON (NEW ZEALAND) Mr Ralph PETTMAN Chair of International Relations P.O BOX 600, Wellington, New Zealand

WAANYI TRADITIONAL ELDERS CORPORATION Mr Brad FOSTER 93 Roberts St. Doomadgee, QLD 4830 Australia THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY (AUSTRALIA) Mr Alec MARR National Campaign Director P.O. BOX 188 Civic Square, ACT, 2608 Australia Ms Virginia YOUNG National Forest Campaign Co-ordinator P.O. BOX 188 Civic Square, ACT, 2608 Australia

WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS Mr Lyndon ORMOND-PARKER Executive Member C/o University of Newcastle Newcastle-upon-Tyne United Kingdom WWF AUSTRALIA Imogen ZEITHOVEN Great Barrier Reef Campaign Manager PO Box 710 Spring Hill, QLD 4004 Australia Ms Anne FERGUSON PO Box 710 Spring Hill, QLD 4004 Australia

V. HOST COUNTRY SECRETARIAT (AUSTRALIA) Mr Stephen BATES Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Frank MALONEY Director Assessment and Coordination Section World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr David ROBERTS World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Ms Joannah LEAHY World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Ms Genevieve THOMPSON World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr David BISHOP Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Mr Tim WONG World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Ms Cate TURK Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Ms Corena SLOPER World Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Ms Rebecca SAVILL Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Ms Annie BOUTLAND Biodiversity Group Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Dr Miranda BROWN Marine and Water Division Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Ms Dominique BENZAKEN Marine and Water Division Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

87

VI. UNESCO SECRETARIAT / SECRETARIAT DE L’UNESCO Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI Assistant Director General for Culture World Heritage Centre Mr Francesco BANDARIN, Director Ms Minja YANG, Deputy Director Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN Ms Sonia RAMZI Ms Mechtild RÖSSLER Ms Josette ERFAN Ms Sarah TITCHEN Ms Junko TANIGUCHI Ms Vesna VUJICIC-LUGASSY Ms Fréderique ROBERT Mr Niklas SCHULZE Mr Peter STOTT Ms Johanna SULLIVAN Ms Julie HAGE Ms Jane DEGEORGES Ms Marianne RAABE Mr David MARTEL Mr Jan TURTINEN Mr Abdelaziz DAOULATLI Consultant

Ms Mireille JARDIN Division of Ecological Sciences Ms Elizabeth KHAWAJKIE Education Sector Mr John DONALDSON Legal Advisor Ms Elspeth WINGHAM World Heritage Officer for Pacific UNESCO Regional Office, Samoa P.O. Box 5766 Matautu Post Offices Apia Samoa

Interpreter: Mr Mourad BOULARES Translators: Ms Sabine DE VALENCE Ms Anne SAUVETRE

89

ANNEX II

Speech of the Outgoing Chairperson, M. Abdelaziz Touri, on the occasion of the opening of the 24th session of the Committee

Cairns, 27 November 2000

Chers membres du Comité, Délégués Observateurs, Chers Collègues, Mesdames, Messieurs, Je m’adresse à vous en qualité de Président du Comité pour la dernière fois et je souhaite saisir cette occasion pour brièvement rappeler les points les plus importants abordés par ce Comité au cours de cette année. Tout d’abord, il me semble nécessaire de revenir sur quelques-unes des réussites de cette année et particulièrement celle liée au Sanctuaire de Baleines d’El Viscaino au Mexique. Suite à la demande du Comité, et sur invitation du gouvernement mexicain, une mission conjointe de l’UICN et de l’UNESCO a été menée sur le site afin d’évaluer les menaces potentielles liées à la proposition de construction de salines dans la zone protégée. Après examen du rapport de mission, le Comité a reconnu que ce projet pourrait mettre en cause l’intégrité du site. Sur la base de ces conclusions, le Président mexicain a annoncé la decision d’annuler le projet. Une autre réussite, cette fois en Inde, concerne le site de l’ensemble de monuments de Hampi. Vous vous rappellerez que le Comité a inscrit ce site sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en Péril en 1999 à Marrakech. Depuis cette décision, les autorités concernées ont créé un groupe d’étude spécifique pour tenter de remédier aux menaces pesant sur le site, liées à l’éxécution de travaux publics non controlés. Les travaux de ce groupe d’étude ont mené le Cabinet du Gouvernement d’Etat concerné à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour déplacer les deux ponts incriminés. Depuis l’inscription de ce site sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril, les autorités gouvernementales centrales et locales concernées, travaillent en collaboration avec l’UNESCO et en consultation avec la communauté locale et les parties concernées au développement d’un plan de gestion intégrée du site tel que le Comité l’avait recommandé. C’est le poids et la forte notoriété de la Convention qui contribue chaque année de facon significative à réduire le nombre de menaces pesant sur les sites. C’est sa notoriété et sa crédibilité qui attire un nombre grandissant d’organismes et d’institutions spécialisés dans le domaine de la conservation du patrimoine naturel et culturel et rend possible la mise en oeuvre de projets conjoints. Le soutien de la Fondation des Nations Unies, avec une contribution qui s’élève à près de 5 millions de dollars, en est un exemple phare. De plus, les engagements de coopération des Etats parties se multiplient et la Convention signée entre le gouvernement français et l’UNESCO en est un exemple concret. Les activités entreprises dans le cadre de cet accord ont pour objectif le renforcement des capacités

en matière de protection juridique, de gestion et de compétences techniques sur les sites, qu’ils soient déjà inscrits sur la Liste ou qu’ils figurent sur les listes indicatives des Etats parties. Outre le fait que ces actions contribuent à établir des liens durables entre les Etats, elles contribuent également à atteindre les objectifs fixés par le Comité en matière de Stratégie globale. De la même manière, je voudrais mentionner la contribution du Japon et de l’Italie au renforcement de l’assistance préparatoire. Cette année fut également marquée par l’accomplissement d’une série de travaux stratégiques et décisifs. Le groupe d’étude sur la mise en oeuvre de la Convention aura contribué de façon notable à l’amélioration de notre système de fonctionnement, notamment au niveau du cycle des réunions du Bureau et du Comité, mais également concernant la documentation produite pour ces réunions. Les groupes de travail sur la représentativité de la Liste et la représentation équitable des Etats au sein du Comité, créés à la demande de l’Assemblée générale des Etats parties, ont permis de traiter des questions essentielles liées à la Stratégie globale. Toutes ces questions importantes, ainsi que celles soulevées par les experts réunis à Canterbury au Royaume-Uni sur le thème du processus de révision des Orientations devant guider la mise en oeuvre de la Convention, seront examinés par cette session du Comité. Je souhaite que cet examen puisse être couronné de décisions concrètes, lesquelles constitueront une étape historique dans le développement de la Convention et dans sa mise en oeuvre au cours des années à venir. Mes Chers collègues, La charge de travail qui nous attend est lourde. Elle est la conséquence d’une année particulièrement active. Je ne vous retiendrai donc pas plus longtemps. Je tiens cependant à prendre encore un instant pour remercier les organes consultatifs, ICOMOS, UICN et ICCROM, pour l’assistance et l’expertise qu’ils mettent fidèlement à notre disposition, et pour avoir accepté de voir leur charge de travail augmenter avec la nôtre. Je voudrais également remercier le gouvernement australien, pays hôte de cette reunion, pour son accueil chaleureux et efficace. Je remercie également le secrétariat pour son soutien tout au long de cette année, particulièrement chargée. J’aimerais enfin remercier le Comité pour son engagement inconditionnel. En vous souhaitant à tous une session particulièrement riche et fructueuse. Merci.

91

ANNEX III

Speech of the Assistant Director-General for Culture of UNESCO, Mr. Mounir Bouchenaki on the occasion of the opening of the 24th session of the Committee

Cairns, 27 November 2000

Honourable Minister Mr Beale Chairman of the World Heritage Committee Members of the World Heritage Committee Distinguished observers Ms Singleton Members of the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee Ladies and gentlemen On behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO Mr Koichiro Matsuura, I would like to welcome you to the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee. The Director-General is deeply grateful to the Australian government for having offered to host this session. UNESCO also acknowledges the welcome of the Aboriginal Traditional Owners. I am so impressed by the physical setting for this meeting. We are meeting amongst the splendour of the Wet Tropics and the Great Barrier Reef, both of which are World Heritage sites. Some of us have had the opportunity to visit, although briefly, these two important sites. On location, presentations were made to show how these sites are managed. Above all, we were very impressed with the quality and commitment shared by the persons responsible for the sites, from the rangers to the experts, who are all working to achieve the same goal: preserving World Heritage. Le Comité du patrimoine mondial s’est rarement réuni dans cette région mais l’Australie a déjà reçu ce Comité il y a 20 ans et c’est là une preuve supplémentaire de l’attachement de ce groupe à la Convention. L’Australie est l’un des Etats parties à la Convention où le patrimoine mondial, est le mieux connu du grand public. Comme on a pu le constater maintes fois, l’Australie se mobilise pour recenser et protéger les sites du patrimoine mondial. Tout a commencé dans les années soixante-dix avec la participation d’un expert australien à la rédaction des Orientations devant guider la mise en œuvre de la Convention. Par la suite, l’Australie a offert les services de ses experts pour aider à définir les critères d’inscription de biens culturels et naturels sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Le Parc national de Kakadu, la Grande Barrière et la Région des Lacs Willandra figurent parmi les premiers sites australiens inscrits au patrimoine mondial, au début des années quatre-vingt. Peu après, une législation nationale a été promulguée pour protéger ce patrimoine. L’Australie compte désormais treize biens

inscrits sur la Liste. Elle continue à jouer un rôle significatif dans le cadre de la Convention et son esprit d’innovation a permis de mieux reconnaître et comprendre les paysages culturels du patrimoine mondial en Australie et dans le Pacifique. Here, in the Asia-Pacific region, two of the key challenges in the conservation of World Heritage properties are being experienced in dramatic fashion. First, in relation to the representativity of the World Heritage List, the Pacific, composed of 16 UNESCO Member States of whom only 6 are States Parties to the Convention, is the sub-region whose cultural and natural heritage is most under-represented in the World Heritage List. It is a pleasure to note that two Pacific Island State Parties are repressented at this session. UNESCO welcomes Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. It has also been a pleasure for me to meet with the representatives of the Youth Forum for the Pacific organized in Cairns by the Australian authorities in co-operation with the Education Sector of UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre. The second challenge concerns the fate of World Heritage sites after they have been inscribed on the World Heritage List. For Asia, the region is experiencing unprecedented urbanisation and growth. With such rapid development towards modernity and globalisation, new challenges to heritage protection and conservation are arising. As Mr Koichiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, stated, when Chairman of the World Heritage Committee in 1999, it is imperative that the root causes of these conflicts between development and conservation be the focus of the attention of all States Parties. This is often neither popular nor easy. The only way we can address the conflicts that do unfortunately arise is through political will and courage. We must rely on the key principles of international co-operation and assistance that lie at the heart of the World Heritage Convention and work towards an integration of heritage conservation as part of the development process. I hope that this Committee will provide support for projects that will encourage conservation as a means, and not just an end for development. As we meet here amidst two of Australia’s natural World Heritage sites, I wish to comment on the increasing support of several international partners in the work of implementing the natural part of the Convention. For example, the UN Foundation’s Biodiversity Programme Framework, adopted in November 1999 is targeting multi-million dollar grant support to Natural World Heritage sites. UNF assistance will benefit sites such as those on

92

the List of World Heritage in Danger in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where most other donors have avoided launching assistance packages due to prevailing war and insecurity. Other projects will link biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism at sites such as the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino in Mexico. You will recall that the President of the Republic of Mexico intervened in April 2000 to remove a potential threat to El Vizcaino posed by proposals to expand an existing salt-production facility. This bold decision of the Mexican Government had an opportunity cost for those local people who would have gained employment and economic benefits from the expansion of the salt-production facility. The UNF project to link tourism with biodiversity conservation will specifically aim to bring employment and economic benefits to the local communities via alternative means such as ecotourism. This meeting is taking place at the dawn of the 21st century and with the new vision of the Director-General of UNESCO, himself having served as Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. As a part of this new vision, the Director-General began restructuring UNESCO and chose to appoint Mr Francesco Bandarin as new Director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre. Mr Bandarin, who began work as Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee on 20 September, holds degrees in architecture and city and regional planning from the University Institute of Architecture of Venice and the University of California, Berkeley respectively. He has extensive experience working with both public and private research centres and institutions in the fields of planning and maintenance of built heritage, cultural heritage conservation plans and programmes, environmental heritage, architectural design, urban planning and management, and development planning. He is already well-known to most of the members of the Committee and the Advisory bodies. Subject to confirmation through an internal recruitment process, Mrs Minja Yang will be working with the new Director as Deputy Director of the Centre. Mrs Yang, with an academic background in development studies from Georgetown University and the University of London, brings with her over twenty years of experience in the UN system and considerable experience in World Heritage conservation through her role over the past years in directing the Centre's work in the Asia-Pacific region and historic cities projects. She also worked with me, as a colleague in the Division of Cultural Heritage where she handled successfully a number of operational projects in Asia. The coincidence of having a new management team in place at the World Heritage Centre at the same time as the World Heritage Committee work through a substantial agenda of reform is opportune. This should create a new synergy for reform, involving the Committee and Secretariat in an effective partnership.

The appointment of the new management team in the World Heritage Centre has taken place in a broader context of reform within UNESCO. En novembre 1999, le Directeur général a lancé un vaste programme de réforme visant à repenser les priorités de l’UNESCO, à redéfinir son action, à normaliser ses structures et ses procédures de gestion, à remotiver son personnel et à rationaliser sa politique de décentralisation. Cette réforme a pour but essentiel de recentrer le programme de l’UNESCO pour qu’il soit plus efficace et mieux adapté aux besoins des Etats membres. A l’heure de la mondialisation, le thème unificateur de cette réforme entend renforcer la contribution de l'UNESCO à la paix et au développement à travers l’éducation, la science, la culture et la communication. Pour le Secteur de la Culture, l’important sera de préserver et de promouvoir la diversité culturelle face à la mondialisation. Pour le Secteur des Sciences, les efforts porteront sur les ressources en eau et les écosystèmes. Le travail intersectoriel permettra de définir des thèmes transversaux. Le patrimoine mondial atteste déjà de la capacité interdisciplinaire de l'UNESCO. Just as with the reform process underway in UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee's reform agenda, one of the key subjects of this session of the Committee, will require a reorientation of action through a process of strategic planning as has been suggested by the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention. You will recall that this was also a major recommendation of the World Heritage Management Review performed in 1998. A process of further strategic reflection is required to update and refocus the Committee's actions in relation to substantial issues such as addressing the root cause of threats to World Heritage natural and cultural sites. A revitalisation of two of the underlying principles of the Convention, protection and international co-operation, should be seen as the ultimate goals of your reflection. In this context, it is important to consider the UNESCO 1972 Convention not in isolation of the Hague Convention of 1954 and the 1970 Convention on Illicit Traffic of Cultural Property. It has to be noted that a draft Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Archaeology is under preparation. It may also be necessary to reform the working method and the schedule of Committee and Bureau meetings. Such change will require time to take root. At the same time, for new strategic orientations to bring expected results, we will need reformed implementation “tools” including revitalized and additional human resources in the Secretariat and an adequate technical infrastructure and information management system. Enhanced co-ordination and synergy between the Centre, UNESCO's Science and Cultural Sectors and the advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN) will also be required. During the last year, we have seen the extent to which States Parties want reform to take place. On behalf of the Director-General, I would like to thank you for having devoted your time to this challenge. I would also like to express the commitment of the Secretariat who will make

93

all effort possible to implement the processes of reform to meet the expectations of you as States Parties to the World Heritage Convention. Mesdames, Messieurs, Je ne voudrais pas conclure sans rappeler le travail immense accompli depuis votre réunion de Marrakech par les membre du Comité eux même, qui n’ont pas menagé leurs efforts dans le cadre des trois groupes de travail et de l’atelier de Cantorbéry. Grâce à la génereuse invitation de la Hongrie dont je tiens à saluer les représentants, nous avons pu confronter dans un riche debat les apports de chacun des groupes et pu faire ainsi avancer la réflection sur une meilleure practique de la mise en oeuvre de la Convention que les Présidents et rapporteurs de ces groupes de travail et de l’atelier trouvent ici l’expression de nos remerciement. Mes collegues et moi même voudrions également associer à l’expression de ces remerciement Monsieur Touri qui pendant toute une année en plus de ces nouvelles fonctions de Secrétaire général du Ministère des Affaires Culturelles et de la Communication du Maroc, a été sollicité en permanence dans ce processus dynamique de développement de la Convention de 1972. Enfin, un grand merci à nos hôtes australiens. Ils n’ont rien laissé au hasard pour que Cairns 2000, comme les Olympiades 2000, soient un succès mondial.

95

ANNEX IV

FIRST PACIFIC WORLD HERITAGE YOUTH FORUM: ACTION PLAN

Main objectives • = To mobilise young people to save the World Heritage sites, important local sites and our environment

in the Pacific • = To encourage all Pacific Member States to sign the World Heritage Convention and participate

actively in its promotion Main lines of action 1. Education • = We need to be more aware of the importance of our heritage as well as our World Heritage.

Therefore, it needs to be part of our education. • = We think a Pacific version of the World Heritage Education Kit will help get World Heritage into our

curricula. 2. Organisation of local preservation activities for young people • = Visits to sites and special actions to clean and preserve them • = Organise World Heritage Youth Forums and camps in each of our countries • = Writing to our governments asking for their support for World Heritage 3. Pacific students networking

Setting up a network of Pacific Patrimonitos’ Centres in our schools to: • = Organise activities to promote local / World Heritage sites as well as local cultures and traditions • = Produce Pacific Patrimonitos’ Newsletter and web-site to share ideas • = Take part in solidarity actions to equip Pacific schools with Information Technology and provide

training Reporting 2001 Deadline: 30 July 2001 through ASPnet schools to UNESCO Apia and Paris Main partners • = Patromonitos and Patrimonitas • = ASPnet schools • = National Commissions for UNESCO • = ASPnet Co-ordinators • = UNESCO • = World Heritage site managers • = Advisory Bodies to the Convention • = Cultural and natural heritage experts • = Local and national authorities • = UNESCO World Heritage Committee

97

ANNEX V

SUBMISSION TO THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE FROM A FORUM OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ASSEMBLED

IN CAIRNS, AUSTRALIA, 24 NOVEMBER 2000

CONCERNED by the lack of involvement of Indigenous peoples in the development and implementation of laws, policies and plans, for the protection of their holistic knowledge, traditions and cultural values, which apply to their ancestral lands within or comprising sites now designated as World Heritage Areas, the Indigenous Peoples Forum in Cairns: 1. AFFIRMS the view of Indigenous Peoples as the traditional owners and guardians of lands and

waters, including biota thereon and therein, who remain forever the repositories, proprietors and custodians of their holistic knowledge, traditions and cultural values, which apply to all their ancestral lands especially those within or comprising sites now designated as World Heritage Areas.

2. CONFIRMS therefore the responsibilities and obligations of Indigenous Peoples to their

succeeding generations, with emphasis on their duty of care, to provide expert advice on effective and efficient consultation, involvement and negotiation in the development, implementation and management of laws, policies and plans, including all matters regarding research and other activities and decisions affecting the World Heritage Areas applicable to them.

3. MOTIVATED by the above and seeking appropriate avenues to address their concerns, the

Indigenous Peoples Forum assembled in Cairns hereby petition the World Heritage Committee, to receive and consider the following submission:

SUBMISSION: It is submitted: That the World Heritage Committee facilitate the establishment of a World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the World Heritage Convention, a body that would bring new competencies and expertise to complement other expert groups, to support the objectives of the World Heritage Committee in the provision of expert Indigenous advice on the holistic knowledge, traditions and cultural values of Indigenous Peoples relative to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, including current operational guidelines. RECOMMENDATIONS. It is recommended that the World Heritage Committee:- 1. Note the contents of the submission of the Indigenous Peoples forum presented to the 24th session

of the Committee,

2. Note the contents of the supporting paper marked Appendix 1 as tabled with this submission,

3. Agree that the proposed WHIPCOE be established within three months of the 25th session of the World Heritage Committee, Agree that the proposed WHIPCOE be provided with operational funding

98

APPENDIX: 1

SUPPORTING PAPER TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FORUM PRESENTED BY LEAVE TO THE 24TH SESSION OF THE WORLD

HERITAGE COMMITTEE, CAIRNS, AUSTRALIA, 28 NOVEMBER 2000 PREAMBLE: 1. RECALLING the obligations on States Parties to the World Heritage Convention under

Article 5 of the Convention, to ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on their territories; and

2. NOTING the extensive obligations of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention,

especially those who are also parties to the following international conventions, covenants or protocols, to recognise, respect, promote and protect, the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities in their natural and cultural heritage consistent with:

(a) the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial

Discrimination. (b) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (c) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (d) the International Convention on Biological Diversity. (e) the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (f) the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl

Habitat (The Ramsar Convention). (g) the International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples in Independent Countries; and (h) the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (albeit not

yet in force) 3. ACKNOWLEDGING Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

and Chapter 26 of Agenda 21, and the Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous People elaborated by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights Working Group on Indigenous Populations (as contained in the annex to document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/26)

4. RECALLING the obligation of Contracting Parties under the World Heritage Convention to

identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit both natural and cultural heritage: (a) even where properties are not included on the World Heritage List; and (b) where properties are only listed for certain natural or cultural heritage values, and

5. TAKING ACCOUNT of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People being

1995 – 2004 the goal of which is to strengthen international co-operation for the solution of problems faced by Indigenous peoples in such areas as human rights, the environment, development, education and health, the theme of which is “Indigenous People - Partnership in Action”, and accordingly, the Commission on Human Rights, in paragraph 15 of resolution 2000/56, encourages Governments as appropriate, recognising the importance of action at the national level for the implementation of the goals and activities of the Decade, to support the Decade, in consultation with Indigenous peoples, by:

(a) preparing relevant programmes, plans and reports in relation to the Decade and

establishing national committees or other mechanisms involving Indigenous people to ensure that the objectives and activities of the Decade are planned and implemented on the basis of full partnership with Indigenous people;

99

(b) seeking means of giving Indigenous people greater responsibility for their own affairs and an effective voice in decisions on matters which affect them; and

(c) identifying resources for activities designed to implement the goals of the Decade. INSPIRED BY THE ABOVE, THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FORUM HEREBY PETITIONS THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND ALL STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION, TO: Re: The Establishment of New Competencies and Expertise 1. ESTABLISH a World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) pursuant

to the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the World Heritage Convention, a body that will bring new competencies and expertise

(a) to complement existing expert groups under the convention being IUCN, ICOMOS and ICROM, and – (b) to support the objectives of the World Heritage Committee in the provision of expert Indigenous advice on the holistic knowledge, traditions and cultural values of Indigenous Peoples relative to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, including current operational guidelines.

Re: The Relationship between the Holistic Natural and Cultural Values and Traditions of Indigenous

Peoples 2. RECOGNISE the holistic nature of Indigenous natural and cultural values and traditions, and – (a) that the maintenance and survival of the said values and traditions of Indigenous peoples and

traditional local communities is dependent upon their continued access to and use of traditional biological resources; and

(b) that the maintenance and practice of the said values and traditions is necessary to ensure the complete conservation of the biological diversity by which many areas qualified for World Heritage Listing; and

(c) that the application of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities is vital to the conservation and sustainable use of the biological diversity of many World Heritage Areas, and in line with decisions III/14, IV/9 and V/16 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, “traditional knowledge should be given the same respect as any other form of knowledge” in the management of World Heritage Areas; and

(d) that the holistic, natural and cultural values and traditions of Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities are dynamic living values rather than static historic ones.

Re: The Duty of Care and Responsibility 3. NOTE that the social dimension to Indigenous cultural and natural values and traditions

includes rights, obligations and responsibilities for decision making. Re: The Removal and Ownership of Cultural Property 4. ACCEPT that the removal of cultural property from a World Heritage site in no way

diminishes the Indigenous cultural values and traditions of the site, and that any such property so removed remains the property of the Indigenous people or traditional local community of origin.

100

Re: The Restoration and Return of Cultural Property 5. SUPPORT the return of cultural property removed from World Heritage Areas listed for their

cultural values or as cultural landscapes. THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FORUM FURTHER PETITIONS THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, TO: Re: The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Meetings and Processes Established by the World Heritage Convention Relationship 6. RECOMMEND to the UNESCO World Heritage Unit that it work in collaboration with the

Convention on Biological Diversity in regard to Task 9 of the programme of work adopted by the Conference of the Parties under decision V/16 concerning the development of guidelines or recommendations for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding any development proposed to take place on sacred sites and on lands or waters occupied or used by Indigenous and traditional local communities. The guidelines and recommendations should ensure the participation of Indigenous and traditional local communities in the assessment and review.

7. RECOMMEND to States Parties to the World Heritage Convention that they work in partnership

with Indigenous and traditional local community organisations in the establishment of policies, guidelines, and/or strategic plans, which include requirements for national reporting, to enable the continuous, on-ground monitoring of impacts of any decisions or proposed developments in World Heritage Areas on the Indigenous spiritual and cultural values associated with those areas

Re: The Protection of Information Concerning Indigenous Cultural and Natural Values. 8. RECOGNIZE that the protection of the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of

Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities is of major international significance and that work is being carried out under Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and by WIPO, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests and by the Commission on Human Rights and the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.

9. RECOGNISE these processes by developing a set of protocols and guidelines in conjunction

with Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities, based on the prior informed consent of traditional knowledge holders, with regard to access and application of such knowledge in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Re: The Spiritual, Intellectual and Social Recovery of Indigenous Peoples and Traditioal Local Communities

10. RECOGNISE that the direct involvement of Indigenous peoples in the conservation and

protection of natural and cultural heritage, will contribute to the spiritual, intellectual and social recovery and development of Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities whose ancestral territories fall within World Heritage Areas now

11. RECOMMEND to States Parties to the Convention on World Heritage that they facilitate

effective and meaningful consultation, co-operation and involvement of Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities in the management of their ancestral territories that fall within World Heritage Areas now.

12. ENSURE that any personnel to be engaged for the purposes of monitoring and managing the

cultural values of World Heritage areas, are drawn from the Indigenous peoples and traditional local communities whose traditional knowledge and practices are the source of the cultural values involved.

101

ANNEX VI

Speech of the Incoming Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Peter King on the occasion of the opening of the 24th session of the Committee

Cairns, 27 November 2000

Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Let me acknowledge the traditional owners. Thank you all for your support of my election. I would especially acknowledge Professor Visy, the distinguished historian and delegate of Hungary. Professor Visy has made a major contribution to the work of this Convention as well as scholarship more generally. I also thank Dr.Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, a country that I love and respect. I am honoured to be nominated by such a distinguished member of the committee, himself a chairman in the year 1994 and with whom I have enjoyed a couple of laughs over a few drinks already. I am honoured to be also supported by Dr Christina Cameron who by reason of her knowledge and experience, embodies all that is good about the World Heritage movement. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the previous chairman M. Touri. I am much impressed with his handling of the work of the chair and the several important initiatives that have occurred under his chairmanship. The search he has started for a more efficient way to do our business is an important one. I am impressed by the way he has ensured that all members, all cultures, can play their part in building consensus. I undertake to you to continue his record of reform and advance the proposed reforms during my term. It is normal for the incoming chair to make a few remarks on taking up the post. I bring, I hope, more than just the Australian, but also a regional perspective to the work of the chair. In this regard, I would particularly acknowledge the delegation of China, some of whom I have worked with in my role as chair of the Australian Heritage Commission in developing mutual programmes for the benefit of the valuable heritage of both nations. As a whole the Asian region has much to offer the Convention and its work in education and training work; and in the field of management of World Heritage properties it has taken a leadership role. As a result of an important initiative of Senator Hill, the Minister for Environment and Heritage in the Australian Government, the Asia Pacific Focal Point was established to find better ways of managing properties throughout the Asia-Pacific region. I hope, too, that you have found the field trips to the Wet Tropics and the Great Barrier Reef of interest and recognize the seriousness of effort which Australia makes

in fulfilling its responsibilities under Article 4 of the Convention. Let me finish by making two comments as to how I see my role looking ahead and regarding the World Heritage movement generally. First, it is central that States Parties retain and enhance their commitment to the Convention. Broadening State Party commitment by adding new members, deepening it by encouraging the nomination and improved protection of sites should be our aim. State Parties are the life blood of the Convention. Second, for the World Heritage movement to succeed over the next ten years, we must not lose sight of the central organizing idea in the Convention. I mean partnership or cooperation. This is not just partnership between States Parties, but also with our expert advisory groups, and highly skilled Secretariat and the thousands of individuals world-wide who provide voluntary effort to protect, preserve and present World Heritage places. Mr. Touri has already facilitated an important initiative on our approach to sites facing threats to their World Heritage values. I look forward to supporting this initiative. Whose heart could fail to have been touched by the stories in our papers of sites under threat? Finding new ways of encouraging practical support could be one of the ways forward. I feel truly privileged to be given this opportunity to play a part in protecting our global heritage. I look forward to serving the convention and facilitating the work of the Committee and Bureau over the year ahead.

103

ANNEX VII

Speech of the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr. Francesco Bandarin on the occasion of the opening of the 24th session of the Committee

Cairns, 27 November 2000

Mr Chairman Members of the World Heritage Committee Distinguished Observers Ladies and Gentlemen Having presented to you the Secretariat’s report for the year 2000, I would now like to spend a few minutes to share with you some of my preliminary ideas on the needs and on the development prospects of the World Heritage Centre. As you know, I have only been in this job for 2 months. This is enough time for an initial assessment but certainly too short a time for the definition of a more comprehensive programme of activities and for the setting of a medium and long term strategy for the Centre. I count on developing, with the help of my colleagues of the World Heritage Centre, and also with your support, a broader action framework in the next months. I hope to be able to present a preliminary scheme of proposals to the next Bureau meeting in June 2001 and to the next Committee meeting in December 2001. The World Heritage Centre In the first instance I consider that the World Heritage Centre – your Secretariat – has been well structured thanks to my predecessors. The Centre has a well defined mission and its high quality staff are well motivated. The amount of work that the Centre is able to deliver is really quite impressive. I would like to cite some figures that might interest you. In the year 2000, we coordinated the production and the circulation of 111 working and information documents for the Bureau and the Committee, prepared over 700 contract documents (double that of of 1996) and ensured the follow-up of over 200 projects and initiatives. The implementation rate for the year 2000 budget was 76% as of October 31, 2000. I can therefore confirm to you that your Secretariat is very productive. And yet, even a short stay at the Centre reveals that there are a number of serious problems that need to be addressed in order to improve our services to the Committee and our activity for the implementation of the Convention. The Centre has a severe lack of staff, especially of general service and secretarial support. Our regular budget allocation is insufficient to provide the services that you receive. We compensate for this with the help of State Parties that provide us with Associate Experts (Finland, Germany, Italy and Japan) and by working long hours and often weekends.

Even the equipment and the physical setting of the Centre are a problem. We have very limited resources to invest in computers, servers and the like. The very furniture of the Centre dates back to the origin of UNESCO. It is disfunctional and unaestethic. Our working environment doesn’t project a very positive image to the numerous visitors we receive every day. But I don’t want to focus your attention on this type of problem. It is for us to solve them, albeit their solution being essential for your own work. As you know, the management of the Convention is experiencing many changes. The number of nominations has steadily increased, as well as the number of State Parties. Increasingly, our system receives the attention of the world. From governments, NGO’s, private corporations and the public. Our responsibilities are becoming greater and greater. Educating the younger generations, informing the public, assuring the efficient monitoring of the World Heritage List, extending the Convention to new categories of World Heritage, ensuring sustainability of the management process and involving public and private institutions in the protection of World Heritage. These changes clearly call for a reorganisation of our activities, and for a revision of our strategy. I think that the Centre needs to define more precisely its own mission and needs to focus on priority areas that are specific to its own position in the international system of institutions that operate in the area of Cultural and Natural Heritage protection. We cannot do everything, and we can only be useful to our own State Parties if we more precisely focus our activities on your priority needs. At the same time, I think that the Centre needs to limit the fragmentation of its own activities. 200 projects are too many, and may even have less impact than 10 larger ones. Furthermore, I think that we cannot act alone. Out of broader partnerships, we will never achieve significant impacts, even if we double or triple our budget. We must therefore develop partnership agreements with national and international organisations, to act together and to create effective and sustainable results. In two years the Convention will celebrate its 30th anniversary. I see this as a really great achievement, that merits not only to be evaluated in detail, but also communicated to the world. The year 2002 can be a very

104

important opportunity to reflect on the first 30 years of the Convention, and to look ahead to its next 30 years. I think UNESCO should promote a reflection on the past and the future of the Convention. The issues I have cited require the development of a medium and long-term strategy, and I hope to be able to achieve this, with your help. But I recognize at the same the need to be practical: our work continues everyday, and we cannot ask for a “moratorium” whilst we develop our new strategy. Let me therefore summarize some of the preliminary ideas I am trying already to test for the improvement of the activity of the Centre in 4 areas of great importance for the management of the Convention: the Secretariat’s activities, the projects managed by the Centre, the information and education activities, and finally the extension of our knowledge of World Heritage. a) Secretariat’s activities The Committee will discuss today the reform proposals that have been agreed by the Bureau. These reforms are targeted at improving the work of the Centre and of the Committee, and therefore have great importance to us. Should they be approved, I am sure that we will be able to serve the Committee more effectively and also ensure a greater impact of the Convention. As you know, I have proposed to the Bureau a preliminary plan for reducing the documentation needed for the work of the Committee. I suggest to use an experimental approach, to be able to evaluate costs and benefits of the new system before we actually decide on a final system. However it is clear that greater efficiency in the meetings of the Committee will not derive only from a simple reduction in the number of pages put before you at each meeting. If we simply reduce the number and size of documents that we present to the Committee there may be some risk that you are not properly informed about the activities of the Secretariat. I therefore also suggested to the Bureau that we hold regular information meetings for the Committee at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. This will give the Secretariat the opportunity to regularly update you on the current state of affairs. b) World Heritage Centre Projects As you know, our project activities are funded essentially from two sources. The World Heritage Fund and Extrabudgetary funds. I would like in the near future to examine these activities in greater detail, as I have the impression that only some of these projects refer to a defined strategy. Althogh I recognize that a certain number of ad hoc activities will always need to be implemented, I would like to propose to you a gradual change in our approach to increase the strategic value of our projects.

Furthermore, I have already developed some initial activities to further expand our partnership agreements. The Centre received last year international recognition of great importance. As you know we developed an important partnership with the United Nations Foundation on major projects for Natural World Heritage sites. I think that my colleagues have set an important model for our future action, and I would like to commed them for this. The Centre has also been able to promote important bilateral partnerships in the field of culture. This has led to the development of world class conservation programs and to the mobilization of significant resources. These types of partnerships need to be further developed and expanded. c) Information and Education I attach enormous importance to information and education. The success of the World Heritage Convention depends to a great extent on our ability to inform and educate. If we reach out more, especially if we are able to pass our message to the younger generations, then and only then, we will be able to say that we have fulfilled the mission of UNESCO and the mission of the Convention. I think that the Centre's activities in information and education should be expanded and connected with a greater system of education and training. Clearly, we must find the resources for this, and we must find ways to establish permanent activities in the State Parties, and to make them sustainable. Again, we will not reach any result alone. We must establish partnerships with public and private institutions. Some interesting experimental activities in this direction have been launched at the Centre, and notably the World Heritage in young hands, and I will do all I can to try to frame them within a broader strategy on information and education. d) A better knowledge of World Heritage Although we have very little time left for this type of activity, I give great importance to research, study and documentation on World Heritage. It is essential for the quality of our work to be able to update our knowledge using research conducted internationally in our field. Exchanges and the organisation of seminars and meetings are therefore an important tool. I would like the Centre to be able to do more in this field, in partnership with universities and research institutions. I think that this activity should be done jointly with our advisory bodies, which are the repositories of a great experience in working with the Convention. As a first step, as I have announced to the Bureau, the Centre initiate in January an activity targeted to develop a better knowledge of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists. I think that knowing our own world is the best step to be able to look at its future. I thank you for your attention.

105

ANNEX VIII

REVISED CALENDAR AND CYCLE FOR WORLD HERITAGE STATUTORY MEETINGS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS OF 2002

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

YE

AR

1

6 DAY BUREAU

6 DAY COMMITTEE

YE

AR

2

6 DAY BUREAU

6 DAY COMMITTEE

2 DAY GENERAL ASSEMBLY (includes election of Committee and Bureau members)

GENERAL CONFERENCE

���� ���� ���� Deadlines ���� DEADLINE FOR STATE OF CONSERVATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND NOMINATIONS (1 FEBRUARY) ���� DOCUMENTS TO BE DISPATCHED 6 WEEKS PRIOR TO MEETING

107

ANNEX IX

Letter from the Italian Government concerning Representativity of the World Heritage List

Rome, 23 November 2000 Dear Director General: The next session of the World Heritage Committee, scheduled in Cairns on November 27 - December 2, will have to deal, among other things, with the recommendations by the extraordinary session of the Bureau in Budapest in order to improve the representativity of both the Committee and the List. My country has already adhered to the prevailing view that a better representation inside the World Heritage Committee should be somehow ensured by shortening the mandate of WHC Members and by fostering a more balanced presence of all "regions and cultures of the world". In this spirit we will support all endeavours aimed at making the WHC a more representative managing body for the Paris Convention. I am frankly disappointed, on the other hand, that the recommendations of the Bureau concerning ways and means to readdress the composition of the List continue to imply very negative consequences for countries like Italy. This appears to go beyond the terms indicated by the 12th General Assembly resolution for well represented counties. At the June 2000 session of the Bureau Italy had adopted a very forthcoming attitude towards the expectations of underrepresented regions and cultures (that is its fact the representatativity/ under-representativity standard to be applied according to the Convention, rather than one focused on represented/under-represented Member States). Moreover, Italy has been allocating for years substantial voluntary resources to the benefit of under-represented developing countries, precisely along the lines indicated by the aforesaid resolution.

There seems to be, however, a number of Member States inside the WHC that are in favour of a new priority order for inscriptions, which would make it hard - if not virtually impossible - for well represented countries to continue applying for inscriptions even if they were to implement the resolution of the 12th General Assembly. One can easily foresee that such a new priority order would in practice promote inscriptions aimed at offsetting the lack or insufficient level of representation on the List of a number of Member States, rather than acknowledge the intrinsic quality of the sites: all this would inevitably diminish the value of the entire List. It seems to me that such an approach is both contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter of the Convention and counterproductive, for it will discourage a number of Member States from continuing to support the restoration and conservation system. Should the upcoming debate in Cairns not reorient itself towards more consensus-based measures, an important opportunity will be lost to further develop the system, so as to meet more adequately the legitimate expectations of a growing number of Member States. I am confident that your Presidency will greatly help in putting the debate into more constructive framework. [ signed ] Giovanna Melandri Mr. Koichiro Matsuura Director General UNESCO PARIGI

109

ANNEX X

STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

Extracts from the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau, Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000) (WHC-2000/CONF.204/4)

WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING In accordance with the Committee’s request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre planned and organised, in consultation with the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), a technical meeting which analysed case studies on World Heritage and mining. This meeting was held at the IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland) from 21 to 23 September 2000 and reviewed practical case studies from the following sites: Lorentz National Park, Indonesia; Huascaran National Park, Peru; Doñana National Park, Spain; Camp Caiman Gold Project, French Guyana (adjacent to a Ramsar site); Kakadu National Park, Australia; and Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park, South Africa. These case studies were presented by site managers and the mining companies. The report of the meeting included: (a) principles underlying the relationship between World Heritage and mining; (b) recommendations to: World Heritage Committee and States Parties; management agencies; and the mining industry; and (c) follow up actions. IUCN informed the Bureau that mining has been a controversial issue at many World Heritage sites and that the issue has been characterized by a lack of dialogue between conservation and mining interests. Thus IUCN welcomed the Committee’s invitation to host a technical workshop jointly with ICME and UNESCO. IUCN highlighted the following issues: There was agreement to disagree on a number of points, for example on mining within World Heritage sites, whereas IUCN feels it incompatible, the industry representatives called for a more flexible approach, but agreed on maintaining the integrity of World Heritage values. The workshop also noted the close co-operation that exists between some mining companies and World Heritage site managers and the importance of considering World Heritage sites in their broader context and for the effective planning for mining and conservation to be considered in land-use programmes. The critical importance of disaster mitigation plans was also emphasised. The meeting was successful and productive and should be considered as part of an on-going process. ICOMOS agreed with the conclusions by the Secretariat and IUCN concerning the outcome of the workshop. Some delegates spoke in support of the Mining Workshop proposal, including Australia. Several delegates (including Greece, Hungary) addressed the issue of the working group to be established and its budgetary implications. It was pointed out that the number of working groups on strategic issues should be harmonized with on-going

strategic planning and periodic reporting efforts of the statutory meetings of the Convention in general, and the Committee in particular. The number of such working groups need to be determined and budgetary implications incorporated along with the best timing requirements for maximising the strategic impact of the reports produced by the working groups. The chair of every group would need to be secured by one of the Bureau members to ensure close involvement of the statutory bodies of the Convention. The reports of each working group should include a comprehensive analysis of each World Heritage site inscribed in relation to the issues examined. They should also examine tentative lists of the States Parties to give recommendations, if necessary, regarding preliminary analysis of potential impacts of the issue on the nominations of those sites that are involved.

“The Bureau took note of the report contained in the Information Document WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.7 which is based on specific case studies on mining and World Heritage and commended the States Parties, site managers, IUCN, UN agencies and the mining industry for having started a collaboration in this matter. The Bureau noted the recommendations of the report and transmitted them to the World Heritage Committee for examination.

NATURAL HERITAGE III.1 The Bureau examined the state of conservation reports of a total of thirty-four natural heritage properties, which were presented in Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.203/5. The relevant paragraph number is indicated below the property name. The Bureau also noted that a report will be presented on Canaima National Park (Venezuela) at its next session. The Bureau decided not to discuss the site of Thungyai Huay Kha Khaeng (Thailand) as the issue mentioned in the Working Document concerns fire prevention in general. i) Natural properties which the Bureau

recommended for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (see paragraph I.24) The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the results of the joint expert mission by the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Bureau undertaken from 14–22 September 2000, presented in Information Document 8. The report of the mission calls for urgent financial assistance to deal with the introduced Salvinia molesta. In view of the imminent

110

danger facing the site, the Director of Senegal National Parks has requested that the site be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger. An international assistance request will be presented to the World Heritage Committee. IUCN pointed out that the key issue is the invasive species, first detected in September 1999, which has spread rapidly including the neighbouring Diawling National Park (Mauritania). The IUCN West African Regional Office has convened an international meeting to promote co-ordinated action against this species. The report underlined the seriousness of the threat to both the environment and the economy of the region. The global environmental significance of the Senegal River Delta mainly for migratory species was also noted. Positive steps have been taken by the Government of both Senegal and Mauritania but, despite these efforts, the situation is not under control. There is a need for a practical action plan at local, national and international level. The reports also called for this site to be placed on the Danger List recognizing that this list can be used as a management tool. IUCN endorses the States Party’s request for Danger List and called on international donors to urgently support actions at the site. A number of Bureau members supported the recommendation for danger listing, highlighting the fact that Salvinia molesta is an invasive species very difficult to eradicate and that the same problem has been encountered in other regions of the world. They pointed out that this has also enormous economic and social consequences. The question of dams in arid zones was also discussed. The Bureau recommended the Committee consider whether the site should be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the State Party. The Bureau also recommended the Committee call on international donor support. ii) State of conservation reports of natural

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico) (see paragraph I.16) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, following the President of Mexico’s statement of 2 March 2000, the proposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino would not proceed. Letters from the Chairperson of the Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO welcomed this decision and congratulated the President of Mexico for the actions taken to implement the World Heritage Convention. The UN Foundation approved a US$ 2.5 million project entitled “Linking conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites” for six sites, including the two natural sites in Mexico, the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and Sian Ka’an. IUCN strongly supported and commended the State Party for its decision to halt the proposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino. This sends a clear message to the world about the importance of

conserving natural values within World Heritage sites and demonstrates the value of focused UNESCO/IUCN monitoring missions. IUCN suggested that this be promoted as a World Heritage success story. The Delegate of Mexico thanked UNESCO for the successful work carried out and expressed his appreciation to the Bureau. He highlighted the social pragmatism in linking development and ecology, and expressed his wish that all countries should collaborate on sustainable development. The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committee commend the Mexican Government for its actions to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and to implement the World Heritage Convention. It encouraged the authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in implementing on-site projects for demonstrating possibilities for generating employment and income for local communities, such as the UN Foundation project on 'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites.

(iii) State of conservation reports of natural

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia (see paragraph I.1) The Bureau took note of the information on the commencement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) of 1999 including the recommendation by IUCN and noted that it would be made available to delegates on request. IUCN noted that the ACIUCN process for monitoring Australian sites has continued and that there are a number of features of this process which are of interest and potential relevance for other States Parties: (a) it brings together the government and NGOs under the umbrella of the Australian Committee for IUCN; (b) it is based on extensive consultation focusing on key issues, and (c) it emphasises the identification of a limited number of practical recommendations. It is hoped that the process will be extended to other Australian sites depending on funding available. The Delegate of Australia commented that this process coincides with the preparations for the periodic reporting process and that it would be useful if these reports be presented in 2002. Shark Bay, Western Australia (see paragraph I.2) IUCN noted that the ACIUCN report for the site was discussed at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. ACIUCN has advised some amendments of the Focused Recommendations on mining consistent with the original ACIUCN recommendation to emphasise that no mineral sands mining or exploration should be allowed if it

111

damages the World Heritage Area and values. IUCN welcomed the State Party’s response to the five Focused Recommendations and looked forward to the completion of the strategic plan for the property and offered to work with the State Party to establish time frames for actions identified. The Bureau commended the State Party and ACIUCN for successfully repeating the process applied to the Great Barrier Reef for the Shark Bay World Heritage area. The Bureau urged them to develop a Framework for Management that could be used as a basis for annual monitoring of progress in the implementation of the five Focused Recommendations, and submit it to the consideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002, in the context of periodic reporting. Great Barrier Reef (Australia) (see paragraph I.3) The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the recent grounding of a freighter upon the reef. IUCN commended the first-year progress report on implementing the Focused Recommendations for this site. IUCN agreed with the State Party that a key issue is to effectively manage catchments adjacent to the reef to reduce overall environmental impact on the site and noted that 80 catchment management projects are currently underway. IUCN suggested that the effectiveness of these projects in reducing pollution impacts should be monitored. IUCN also noted and applauded efforts to establish a representative management planning system in the World Heritage areas based around an expanded core of highly protected areas. IUCN saw a clear link between such areas and sustainable fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef region. IUCN reviewed the recent refloating of the grounded container vessel with a potentially dangerous cargo from the reef. This was achieved by the use of explosives by the site management agency. It was noted that legal action is being taken against the shipping operator. This highlighted several issues: the need for pilotage of large vessels within the World Heritage area, especially those carrying hazardous materials, as well as the need for effective response strategies which aim to minimise environmental impact and which involve consultation with key stakeholders, including traditional owners. Bureau members noted the fragile ecosystem and the need for continuous monitoring of the coral reef and the need to protect it from pollution. The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau about the actions taken to remove the vessel and that other options would have been preferred, but there was a need for urgent removal. Criminal procedures are underway against the owners of the vessel. The management of shipping needs to be of highest international standards. Australia also participates actively in the International Coral Reef Initiative and in the Coral Reef Watch. The Bureau thanked the State Party for submitting a first-year progress report on the implementation of the “Focused Recommendations” adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session. The Bureau noted with

satisfaction the State Party's efforts to involve local communities in the work of Management Committees that are beginning to address integrated land and catchment management issues. The Bureau invited the State Party to sustain the pace of progress in the implementation of the “Focused Recommendations” achieved in the first year and submit the second-year report to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002 in the context of periodic reporting. The Bureau also requested the State Party to submit a report on the grounding of the vessel on the Great Barrier Reef and follow-up actions for the consideration of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves (see paragraph I.4) IUCN noted that the State Government of Queensland has decided not to approve the Naturelink Skyrail development. IUCN had concerns about the appropriateness of this development impacting on the World Heritage area and applauded the reported decision of the Queensland Government. The Delegate of Australia confirmed the cancellation of the project and stated that further information will be provided to the Secretariat shortly. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the cable car construction was not proceeding and requested the State Party to keep the Centre informed on this matter.

Wet Tropics of Queensland (see paragraph I.5) The Bureau took note of Information Document INF.6 “ACIUCN Report on the state of conservation of the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, Australia”. ACIUCN carried out a comprehensive monitoring exercise for this site, which involved a series of stakeholder consultations and extensive joint involvement of the Government and NGOs. The report identified four priority action areas: (i) the need to support site management, particularly to ensure adequate resources to effectively implement the Wet Tropics Management Plan and Strategic Plan; (ii) the need to closely monitor the management of native and introduced species, in particular the control of feral and exotic species; (iii) the need to ensure complementary management of land use and human impacts within and beyond the boundaries of the World Heritage area. ACIUCN recommended a particular focus on industrial and tourism developments, as well as the need to carefully assess electricity options in the region, which may impact the World Heritage area, and (iv) consideration of a number of strategic issues, including indigenous involvement on management, the recognition of cultural values in any review of boundaries to enhance site management. The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that the State Party’s response to the priority action areas as described by IUCN is under Ministerial consideration and will be transmitted to the Centre very shortly.

112

The Bureau noted the State Party’s response would be made available in due course. The Bureau requested the State Party and IUCN to collaborate in the development of a Framework for Management that could be used as a basis for annual monitoring of progress in the implementation of the five Focused Recommendations and submit it for the consideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002, in the context of periodic reporting. Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland) (see paragraph I.6) IUCN noted that the document “Principles of the Bialowieza National Park” would guide the organization of the proposed extended Park. The extension has been controversial and this document represents an important compromise as it balances conservation and sustainable development of the region. It allows for zoning, phasing out of the logging activity that is outside of the World Heritage area and increasing emphasis on tourism. IUCN supported the extension of the National Park to include the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Forest. While this extension area was assessed by IUCN not to be of World Heritage value, it is still considered important to complement the existing World Heritage site. The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party. The Bureau urged the State Party to expedite the enlargement of the National Park to include the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, and to apply the document “Principles of the Bialowieza National Park functioning after its extension on to the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Proposition)” as a basis for management of the National Park when it is enlarged. Pirin National Park (Bulgaria) (see paragraph I.8) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter from the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) of Bulgaria was received on 3 November 2000 concerning the project proposal of the enlargement of the existing ski zone within the World Heritage site. It pointed out that the existing ski zone was constructed in 1985/86 in compliance with the existing national nature protection. The MOEW decided to give approval for the construction of two new ski runs (13.5 ha) and a ski lift facility and to give approval for a study on a new ski run (7ha) and a lift. At the same time, no approval is given for the remaining ski runs proposed. The information has been transmitted to IUCN and will be reviewed carefully.

The Bureau requested the State Party to provide an up-date report on this development as well as on the legal status of the existing ski zone within the World Heritage site in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon) (see paragraph I.7) IUCN welcomed the State Party’s report on the site that indicated proposals to enhance the management capacity. However, IUCN noted that the situation on the ground is

difficult with illegal opening of roads for forestry activity and poaching continuing to be a threat. The IUCN Central African Office has been working with the State Party to secure funding since the main funding agencies pulled out of the site in 1999. In 1999 the IUCN/WWF Forest Innovations Project conducted an assessment of management effectiveness in co-operation with site managers and partners. The review highlighted problems arising from the withdrawal of funding and issues such as bushmeat. There was a recent meeting between the key Dja partners (IUCN, ECOFAC and other NGOs) to discuss the Dja Reserve Management Plan in relation to surrounding pressures. A meeting in January 2001 will discuss the bushmeat issue, a key issue relating to poaching at Dja and it is hoped that a project proposal may arise. In view of the circumstances, it is considered that a mission to this site is warranted to assess the situation.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review the report and to co-operate with the State Party to work out methods for the implementation of the recommendations of the Sangmelima Workshop, and to report on these measures, and on the state of conservation of this site with special reference to illegal roading, poaching, and the status of mineral exploration and any proposed mining activities in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. The Bureau also encouraged international donors and partners to support conservation efforts at this site.

Gros Morne National Park (Canada) (see paragraph I.9) IUCN noted that logging outside the Gros Morne National Park could affect the exceptional natural beauty of the site. It is noted that Parks Canada has expressed concern regarding the cumulative impacts of logging in areas adjacent to the Park, as part of the environmental impact process of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As part of this process, the logging company has been asked for more information relating to the potential impacts on the Park. IUCN recommended the State Party, through Parks Canada, continue to work with the Province, environmental groups and the forest industry to find solutions to this issue. The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that the company’s proposition concerning additional logging plans outside the area has been cancelled. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on this development and issues associated with this site as indicated by IUCN in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada) The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that the plans for the Cheviot Coal Mine outside the Jasper National Park portion of the Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks, have been cancelled, mainly due to declining coal prices.

113

Los Katios National Park (Colombia) (see paragraph I.10) The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the report of the technical meeting on the two World Heritages sites of Los Katios National Park and Darien National Park (Panama) held in Bogota on 23 and 24 May 2000. Following the Bureau’s request for a mission to the site to obtain detailed information on the state of conservation, the Centre received an invitation for a field mission from 10 to 12 November 2000 including visits to Medellin, Turbo and Bogota for discussions with on-site staff. Security clearance for the mission was obtained from UNDP. Due to the dates just prior to the Bureau session and the unavailability of a representative from IUCN, the mission had to be postponed. IUCN noted the continuing instability in this area that continues to impact Los Katios and the contiguous Darien World Heritage site. IUCN recommended that further consideration of this site await the 2001 mission. This mission should review the potential for inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger as well as reviewing the potential for developing one transfrontier site. IUCN supported the efforts by the States Party to encourage on-site co-operation and capacity building between Los Katios and Darien World Heritage sites. The Bureau welcomed the transboundary collaboration and recalled the request of the Committee at the time of the inscription to create a transboundary site between Colombia and Panama. Concerning the mission to the site, the Bureau requested UNESCO and IUCN collaborate and find suitable dates to carry out the mission in 2001. Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire) (see paragraph I.11) IUCN, through its West African Office, noted continuing major problems at this site mainly relating to poaching and forestry and agricultural encroachments on Park boundaries. IUCN supported a mission to the site, if invited by the State Party.

The Bureau decided to give additional time to the State Party to enable it to complete the implementation of the International Assistance provided. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party with a view to undertaking the mission requested by the twenty-third session of the Committee, and requested the State Party to provide the detailed state of conservation report and corrective measures for mitigating threats to the site before 15 September 2001 to be considered by the twenty-fifth session of the Committee. Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) (see paragraph I.12) The Secretariat informed the Bureau of positive developments at the site. However, reports had also been received concerning tensions with lobster fishermen and their recent occupation of the offices of the Charles Darwin Research Station on Isabella Island.

IUCN commended the States Party for its positive conservation measures implemented at the site, specifically the development of regulations to the Galapagos Special Law for immigration, invasive species and tourism. IUCN noted the need to ensure these regulations are effectively implemented. IUCN urged finalization of the special regulations for fisheries. This should address issues such as permissible fishing methods, boat permits and principles for setting fisheries quotas, including for lobster fisheries. The unsuitability of longline fisheries in this area rich in seabirds, sharks and turtles was also noted. IUCN commended the States Party for fundraising efforts for the site, especially the success with the GEF Grant and the Inter American Development Bank Loan. These will strengthen the quarantine system, marine reserve management and the conservation agency. IUCN looks forward to reviewing the marine extension to the World Heritage site in 2001 and suggested this evaluation be combined with a monitoring mission.

The Bureau welcomed the positive developments for conservation at this site and thanked the State Party for considering extending the World Heritage Area to include the marine zone. The Bureau commended the State Party on the excellent progress with implementing the Management Plan and recommended that a monitoring mission be linked with the IUCN evaluation of the marine extension in 2001. The Bureau, however, noted with concern recent threats arising from industrial fishing interests and invited the States Party to strictly enforce all laws and regulations, to underline its commitment to the conservation of the site. The Bureau also encouraged the State Party to expedite finalising regulations and other provisions for the effective enforcement of the Galapagos Law, particularly in the fisheries, tourism and quarantine sectors.

Komodo National Park (Indonesia) (see paragraph I.13) IUCN and UNESCO participated in a monitoring mission to this site in September 2000. Key issues were identified as: destructive fishing using cyanide and dynamite, mainly by fishermen outside the Park. It is a difficult challenge for the Park management to control the application of the regulation and enforcement of fishing laws. Due to inadequate staffing levels, poaching and collecting activities are impacting the natural values of the site. These problems are exacerbated by internal migration to the Park. The State Party is addressing this by trying to improve the socio-economic conditions of communities outside of the Park boundary. There are a number of management issues, including the provision of water and the need for improved waste management and sanitation. IUCN also noted that the existing 25-year Master Plan is a very useful document, but recommends development of a more detailed 5-year management plan. It is critical that there be strong emphasis on involving local communities in plan preparation. IUCN noted the positive steps being taken by the State Party to address management issues and the very constructive partnership role of the Nature Conservancy in the management of the site. The mission identified a number of recommendations, including (1) to promote and increase community awareness of the benefits

114

of the Komodo National Park; a critical element is to ensure full involvement of local communities in the preparation of the management plan; (2) other specific recommendations include increasing public awareness, encouraging appropriate eco-tourism, improving site management and developing effective monitoring and research programmes. IUCN concluded that this positive reactive monitoring mission identified practical steps to address key issues. The Bureau also took note of the UN Foundation project of US$ 2.5 million entitled “Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites” for six sites, including the Komodo and Ujung Kulon National Parks of Indonesia. The Bureau noted the recommendations by the IUCN/UNESCO mission and also that the UNESCO-UNEP project already addresses several of the issues mentioned (training, funding and park management). The Bureau urged the State Party to develop an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the IUCN/UNESCO mission to Komodo National Park and submit it, as well as a progress report, for the consideration of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001. Lorenz National Park (Indonesia) (see paragraph I.14)

The Bureau noted that the site was one of the case studies at the Mining Workshop. IUCN informed the Bureau that the study presented was an excellent case which noted the close collaboration between the company and the Park, with Freeport being a major source of funding support for biodiversity projects and studies in the Park. A number of environmental impacts associated with the disposal of mine tailings from the site and potential impacts were noted. It recommended that those be further investigated. Freeport is developing ways to contain and treat waste and is undertaking a health and ecological risk assessment study. The issue of mine tailings should be also addressed as part of the study. IUCN also pointed out the co-operation between WWF, TNC and the State Party to develop a three-year Action Plan for this site and proposals for a Lorenz Trust Fund. The Bureau encouraged the Indonesian authorities to closely collaborate with Freeport and other partners like WWF and TNC who are keen to support the conservation of Lorentz. The Bureau welcomed the idea for the establishment of a Lorentz Trust Fund or similar arrangements to ensure long-term conservation financing for the site. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party and Freeport to obtain detailed information on the current practice of tailings disposal from the mining concession adjacent to the Park and the potential threats it may pose to its integrity. The Bureau endorsed IUCN’s suggestion that Freeport be requested to address this issue as part of the ecological and health risk assessment study it is preparing.

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya) (see paragraph I.15) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter was received by the Centre on 17 November 2000 from the Kenyan Embassy in France, on a number of positive actions by the Government, including security operations in the newly gazetted National Reserve, a task force on the transition of management to the Kenya Wildlife Service and the extension of the boundaries to cover an area of 1632 sq. km. It stated that these positive actions would negate suggestions to include Mt. Kenya on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN noted positive measures that will have long-term benefits for the management of the site. IUCN is however concerned about the critical situation of the site and suggests a monitoring mission to assess the potential for inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau welcomed the actions taken by the State Party, and requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party with a view to undertaking a monitoring mission to the site to ascertain its state of conservation. The Bureau requested the State Party to co-operate with the Centre and IUCN with a view to completing the management plan and the programme of rehabilitation, to be submitted to the Centre by 15 March 2001 for consideration by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Te Wahipounamu – South West New Zealand (New Zealand) (see paragraph I.17) IUCN reported that the issue arose from concerns of a New Zealand NGO at the impact on parts of the World Heritage site from the Himalayan Thar, introduced for sport hunting long before the World Heritage inscription. The Himalayan Thar Management Plan aims at sustained control of thar to maintain vegetation in an ecological acceptable condition. Thar numbers had been reduced significantly under the control plan in place but the New Zealand Conservation Authority favours a review of the policy. IUCN stated that such a review would be possible when the management agency reviews the impacts of the existing policy over the next few years. The Observer of New Zealand reaffirmed the commitment to the sustained control of this particular introduced animal and asked the Bureau to note the legal status of the control measures being implemented and to be reviewed in 2003. The State Party believed it may be useful to report back in 2002, when the process to review the control plan will have commenced. The Bureau noted that the State Party is in the process of implementing a Himalayan Thar Control Policy but invited the State Party to take into consideration the criticisms of NZCA concerning some aspects of the Policy. The Bureau requested that the State Party give due consideration to changes called for by the NZCA when it reviews the Policy’s impacts during 2002/2003, or if possible, earlier. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progress

115

report on the implementation of the Policy and its plan or efforts to undertake a review of policy implementation to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002. Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) (see paragraph I.18) IUCN carried out a reactive monitoring mission to the site in May 2000 and the report has been circulated. It includes the following points: The poaching of the Arabian Oryx has been stopped for the past 16 months, thus arresting the previous decline in populations. The key role of the Sultan’s special force should be noted, indicating the highest level of support of this species for the conservation of this site. A new management plan has been prepared with revised boundaries and clearly identified management zones. It is important that these boundaries are marked on the ground and adequate resources allocated to ensure its implementation. The Report also identified a number of other issues, including control of vehicles, overgrazing and mining. These issues need to be addressed in the implementation of the management plan. The site should not be considered for Danger Listing. The Delegate of Morocco welcomed the progress made and highlighted the fragile environment and the economic and petroleum exploitation interests. Such a site could be seen as a core area in a wider Biosphere Reserve context to include sustainable development. The Bureau commended the State Party for finalising the draft management plan for the Sanctuary and proposing new, more rational boundaries. To maintain the integrity of the site, the Bureau requested the State Party, as a matter of urgency, to adopt the draft management plan, complete the boundary marking, and allocate adequate resources for the plan’s implementation. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a new boundary for the World Heritage listing which excluded the buffer zone. Finally, the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party in order to continuously monitor the site and to report regularly to the Bureau.

Huascarán National Park (Peru) (see paragraph I.20) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the site was one of the successful case studies of the Mining Workshop. IUCN pointed out that the mining company agreed to develop the southern route for the transport of mineral resources, rather than transporting them through the Park. IUCN highlighted the positive co-operation between the State Party, the mining company and the Mountain Institute at this site. The need for the development of a new management plan which focuses on effective management of tourism and better control of small-scale mining operators within the Park was emphasized. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission report and to regularly report on the status of the implementation of these recommendations.

Danube Delta (Romania) (see paragraph I.21) The Bureau took note of the report supplied by the State Party. IUCN noted reports of re-opening of mining operations upstream from this site. IUCN urged caution, bearing in mind that there have been four spills of cyanide and heavy metals from three mine sites in Romania in the first half of this year. This situation needs to be carefully reviewed. IUCN also noted that it is essential that mining companies have clear and effective disaster mitigation plans, experience borne out from this case and Doñana National Park, Spain. The Delegate of Hungary asked that a report be provided by the State Party on measures taken in the mine region.

The Bureau thanked the State Party for having provided information on the impacts of the spill on the Danube Delta World Heritage area and urged the State Party to develop clear and effective disaster mitigation plans for any on-going or future mining activities that may affect World Heritage values. It requested the State Party to provide a report on measures taken in the mine region in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Committee. Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation) (see paragraph I.22) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow would attend a meeting on the proposed road and gas pipeline through the Ukok Plateau, from 18 to 20 December 2000 in the Altai Republic. IUCN pointed out that it is currently only a proposal and suggested caution on this issue. There is a need to assess options for the road outside of the World Heritage area and consult with stakeholders. IUCN also noted proposals for an Altai Convention, which aims to provide a framework for balancing conservation and development needs.

The Bureau invited the State Party to inform the Centre on details concerning the proposed road construction project, including any environmental impact studies that may be underway and any future developments in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation) (see paragraph I.23) IUCN noted the serious reports received on salmon poaching, gold mining, gas pipeline and a geothermal powerplant in the region. IUCN noted the socio-economic challenges in this region and emphasised the need to link planning of the World Heritage site with development opportunities for local populations and regional planning as set out in the Project Kamchatka Report. Additional donor support would be required and more initiatives need to be developed. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a mission of a staff member of the UNESCO Office in Moscow will take place in January 2001.

116

A number of Bureau members and observers expressed concerns about the magnitude of the problems encountered, and requested that these brought to the attention of the State Party. The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to this site and that a case may exist for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a state of conservation report on this site, which addresses the points raised by IUCN, and the potential for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) (see paragraph I.24) IUCN noted that a Workshop on Lake Baikal was held in July 2000 and that this meeting and other reports have indicated: (a) continuing concerns about the discharge of waste waters into Lake Baikal, and the main tributary of Lake Baikal, the Selenga River. One of the major waste water inputs is the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill; (b) a delay in the preparation of a detailed plan for the conversion of the Pulp and Paper Mill; (c) concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of the Federal Law on Lake Baikal were pointed out, as well as concerns about other threats to the integrity of the site (unregulated hunting, fishing). IUCN also noted that the State Committee on Environmental Protection has been abolished. The specific implications for World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation are unclear.

The Bureau expressed its concern that no updated information was received from the State Party on this property and that other recent reports indicate serious threats to this site and that a case may exist for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the State Party invite a mission to this site in 2001 to ascertain whether it should be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) (see paragraph I.26) IUCN noted significant threats from poaching by local subsistence farmers and armed gangs. The report suggested that there may soon be no Derby Elands left, unless urgent measures are taken. The IUCN Senegal Office has expressed concern about the situation in the Park and has reported proposals to transfer animals, including the Derby Elands, from the World Heritage site. There are also recent proposals to import western giant elands from Senegal to a commercial ranch in South Africa. IUCN noted that there has not been a study to assess the impacts of the translocation of animals on the conservation status of the Park and urged caution. The Bureau noted with concern the reports concerning this site. The Bureau requested the State Party to consider inviting a monitoring mission to this site in 2001.

Doñana National Park (Spain) (see paragraph I.27) IUCN recognized the efforts made by the State Party to clean up the site, particularly associated with the Doñana 2005 Restoration Project and the Green corridor project. However, there is still a long way to go. The need for decommissioning of the old tailings dam and better storage of mining waste was highlighted. The Bureau commended the continuing efforts of the State Party to clean up the area, which indicated a gradual recovery of the Guadiamar River Basin. However, the Bureau noted that there is still a great deal of effort required and that there remains high pollution in some areas. The Bureau urged the State Party to accelerate implementation of the Doñana 2005 restoration project and implement the review meeting to be held during 2001. The authorities are invited to inform the Centre by 15 April 2001 on tentative dates and a programme for the review meeting.

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka) (see paragraph I.28) IUCN urged priority attention to resolving boundary issues and endorsed efforts to incorporate an additional 1,000 ha of natural forest into the Reserve. IUCN Sri Lanka will be working with the State Party on this issue and on implementing a proposed GEF-funded project to conserve the south-western rainforests of Sri Lanka.

The Bureau noted that the Forest Department is making efforts to reclaim the land released for organic tea farming and may encounter a legal challenge from the private enterprise concerned. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to monitor further developments on the matter and report on progress to the next extraordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. In addition, the Bureau invited the State Party to report on steps taken to incorporate 1,000 ha of natural forest to the National Reserve and its eventual inclusion in the World Heritage site. Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda) (see paragraph I.30) IUCN noted continuing problems regarding security at this site. The Observer of Uganda informed the Bureau about the difficult situation and civil unrest in the whole region. A new strategic plan was prepared in September 2000 that addresses a number of issues including a security plan. This will be translated into an Operational Plan with budgetary implications by March 2001. This will also define which areas could be financed by the World Bank and the World Heritage Fund. He confirmed that information would be provided as soon as possible to the Centre. IUCN also noted there is a $7 million trust fund for Bwindi. The Bureau recalled its earlier request and recommended that the Centre and IUCN continue efforts to verify, with the Ugandan authorities, their needs for support for purchase of vehicles and staff training and to continue

117

assisting the Ugandan authorities to obtain financial support from suitable sources, including the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide the information on the Operational Plan by 15 April 2001 and asked the Centre and IUCN to report on the measures taken to support the management programme at the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in mid-2001. Gough Island (United Kingdom) (see paragraph I.31) IUCN noted that the invasive species Sagina has been eradicated but urged the State Party to carefully monitor the situation to ensure that future outbreaks do not occur. The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau that his Government is addressing long-term issues through the revision of the management plan. The revision of boundaries of the Reserve had been extended from three nautical miles to 12 nautical miles, but that this did not affect the World Heritage area. The Bureau commended the State Party and the St. Helena Government for their effective and prompt response in eradicating this invasive species. It invited the State Party to keep the future situation of the site under close review. Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania) (see paragraph I.32) IUCN noted that an Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out on the proposed routes for the planned access road and a decision made that the road should avoid environmentally sensitive areas. IUCN urged the State Party to proceed slowly and with caution on this matter. IUCN also noted problems with introduced species in the crater. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to continue monitoring this site, and invited the State Party to provide reports to the Centre on a regular basis and to provide the Centre with a copy of both the management plan and the Environmental Impact Assessment Study. Ha Long Bay (Vietnam) (see paragraph I.33) IUCN reviewed the State Party’s annual report and applauded many positive actions underway, including raising community awareness and support for the area. The key concerns are the cumulative impacts of activities in the Ha Long Bay region outside the site. IUCN supported programmes such as the integrated coastal and marine management programme for the Tonkin Archipelago proposed by IUCN Vietnam and the World Bank. This tries to balance conservation and development across the region. The Delegate of Hungary highlighted the complexity of the site and the need for a broader heritage impact assessment, as well as the need for the consolidated involvement of all partners.

The Observer of Vietnam informed the Bureau that during the last months a strategic partnership framework has been agreed upon for a consolidated integrated management approach. On 1 December 2000 the Master Plan 2000-2020 would be due for ratification by the Prime Minister. The Master Plan will take into account the World Heritage area and its buffer zone. The environmental legislation was amended to allow a thorough environmental management audit of the Bai Chay Bridge construction project. There is a high level of commitment by both the provincial and central Government. World Heritage education programmes are to be introduced into all schools in the region. A new donor strategy is being developed and training in donor advocacy is being provided to staff of the Ha Long Bay Management Department. The Bureau commended the commitment of the State Party to continue to improve infrastructure and capacity for the protection of the site and for providing a report on the Management and Preservation of the site. The Bureau however, drew the attention of the State Party to risks linked to addressing environmental impacts of individual projects to the neglect of monitoring cumulative impacts of the overall development of Ha Long City and other areas surrounding the World Heritage area. The Bureau urged the Government of Vietnam and the Provincial Government of Quang Ninh to seek donor support, including from JICA and other Japanese Institutions that co-operated to carry out the Study on Environmental Management of Ha Long Bay, to initiate implementation of the Study’s recommendations with minimum possible delay. The Bureau noted that the State Party amended the environmental legislation as appropriate to ensure the full implementation of the Environmental Management and Audit Programme recommended by the EIA of the Bai Chay Bridge Construction Project, during the construction phase as well as beyond. The Bureau also encouraged the State Party to increase its efforts to co-ordinate and consolidate inputs of all stakeholders for the conservation of the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area and the sustainable development of its surrounding region. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progress report on the outcome of its efforts to implement the above recommendations to the next extraordinary session of the Bureau at the end of 2001. Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) (see paragraph I.34) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that problems were encountered with the proposed bilateral meeting. A related international assistance request has been received from Zambia. IUCN saw the implementation of the joint Zambia/Zimbabwe planning workshop as a priority and looked forward to participating. The Delegate of Zimbabwe confirmed that problems existed and welcomed the Centre’s letter on this matter. He informed the Bureau that a meeting would take place in Zimbabwe from 19 to 22 December 2000 prior to the bilateral meeting. The Bureau reiterated its requests of earlier sessions and those of the Committee, that the States Parties expedite the

118

organisation of the bilateral meeting in order to report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in mid-2001. MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE i) State of conservation reports of mixed

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Kakadu National Park (Australia) (see paragraph I.35) The Bureau recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park. The Bureau reviewed progress on two main issues. Firstly, the resolution of a number of scientific issues and, secondly, cultural issues. Scientific issues The Bureau noted the conclusions of the report of the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council for Science (ICSU) (see Executive Summary of WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.5). The Bureau also noted that on 10 November, in a letter addressed to the Chair of the Committee, the State Party had advised that: • = they accepted the intent of the ISP recommendations

and will ensure that their implementation achieves the objectives outlined by the ISP and IUCN in that report.

• = subject to a review of the resource implications, and

the need to ensure the cooperation of Traditional Owners, a more extensive monitoring programme at a local and regional level could be put in place.

• = they will explore mechanisms for improving the

transparency of the external technical advice review process through the incorporation of further independent advice from the most appropriate Australian scientists and engineers.

• = amendments have been made to Australia’s legal

regime in relation to environmental protection and the regulations governing the exports of uranium.

The leader of the ISP of ICSU informed the Bureau that the ISP report was concerned principally with issues relating to the approved proposal for the Jabiluka Milling Alternative (JMA). The ISP considers that the risks to natural values of the World Heritage Area have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty and are small or negligible for the approved mining and milling

proposal. However, the ISP considers that there is still the need for:

(a) landscape and ecosystem analyses; (b) improvement in management arrangements as a

leakage incident at the Ranger Mine showed that the response of the mining company and authorities was unsatisfactory, and that the standard of monitoring and maintenance had fallen below those expected;

(c) an independent scientific advisory group and transparent review process.

The ISP considers that the Australian Government response to the ISP recommendations dated 10 November 2000 are satisfactory in relation to some of the ISP recommendations, but unsatisfactory for others. The leader of the ISP of ICSU said that the ISP findings do not necessarily relate to milling proposals other than the JMA. Furthermore he commented that the ISP had little information on alternative milling proposals. The ISP stated that if these alternative milling proposals can be shown to reduce any potential environmental risk, then the ISP would accept and welcome them but would still need: - detailed rigorous environmental analyses - full stakeholder involvement at the earliest stage - transparency of process, and - a fully independent review body. IUCN referred to the joint statement made by the advisory bodies in July 1999 and to the report of the IUCN expert who had participated in the mission in July 2000 (see Annex 4 of WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.5). IUCN endorsed the process of scientific peer review and said that in accordance with the Precautionary Principle there should be no mining until there was a complete Environmental Impact Assessment on the modified mine plans. IUCN said they were very concerned about the leak at the Ranger uranium mine reported to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in June 2000, and about other reported leaks, but noted that only minor ecological impacts have occurred. They expressed concern about the potential cultural impacts of the leak and the inconsistencies in the reports of the Northern Territory and the Federal Government on the leak. IUCN recommended that there be further documentation of the natural values of the Lease and adjacent areas at the earliest opportunity. In noting that there were also ethical and cultural issues relating to the scientific and technical issues at Jabiluka, IUCN indicated that it was essential for the Traditional Owners not to feel excluded from future discussions and assessments. The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and the IUCN Representative for their constructive participation in the mission to the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral leases in July 2000. In referring to the ISP’s work

119

as a good example of a process of scientific peer review, he welcomed the finding of the ISP report, particularly the overall finding that risks to natural values were small or neglegible. He informed the Bureau that discussions between the leader of the ISP of ICSU, the Supervising Scientist of Australia and IUCN would continue over the coming days to seek agreement on a proposed decision to be submitted to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. Cultural issues At its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, the Bureau also requested that all affected parties and the Australian Government, work to find a constructive solution to addressing the economic, social and cultural expectation of the people of Kakadu while protecting the full range of World Heritage values. On 10 November the State Party informed the Chair of the current status of initiatives to improve the social and economic circumstances of Aboriginal people living in Kakadu. However, for cultural issues, particularly in relation to cultural mapping and the development of a cultural heritage management plan, all parties reported a lack of progress and some difficulties in co-operation. ICOMOS recommended that an independent scientific group perform an objective assessment of the cultural values of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and referred to the possible development of international guidelines concerning World Heritage and indigenous people. The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that the Australian Government was pleased to begin a new dialogue with the Traditional Owners and other stakeholders to together consider a process for addressing cultural issues at Jabiluka. The majority of members of the Bureau, in welcoming these developments, acknowledged that dialogue between the Traditional Owners and the State Party was crucial if progress could be made towards developing a new process to address any outstanding cultural issues relating to the development of the uranium mine and mill at Jabiluka. The Bureau, 1. Noted the report of the ISP of ICSU and IUCN on the

science issues and the new information provided by the State Party and recommended it be examined by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

2. Welcomed the fact that discussions are taking place

between the State Party and the Traditional Owners. 3. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that

serious impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka might still exist.

4. Considered that the Committee’s previous decision

regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot

be implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.

5. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the

Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to “participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park”.

6. The Bureau requested that the Committee note that the

State Party is prepared to consider whether a new process is required to address any outstanding issues relating to cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.

ii) State of conservation reports of mixed

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China) (see paragraph I.36) Monitoring missions were carried out by IUCN and ICOMOS to evaluate the impact of a monorail linking two summits of Mt. Emei. The construction of the monorail was noted with concern when IUCN evaluated the site in 1996. At the time, the relevant authorities announced that construction had been suspended and the site was inscribed in December 1996. Subsequently, the Bureau learnt that the monorail was completed and has been operating since December 1998. IUCN pointed out that the outcome of the monitoring mission has been positive, as the monorail has largely followed the existing footpath. The footpath has been closed and vegetation is encroaching and there is control over the visitor numbers to Wanfo Summit. The route of the monorail is relatively unobtrusive. ICOMOS drew the attention of the Bureau to the proposed access walkway to view the Leshan Giant Buddha. The siting and general appearance of the structures were acceptable, but ICOMOS recommended that modification be made relating to the use of materials in conformity with the proposals of the World Bank expert. The Bureau, upon examining the findings of the IUCN and ICOMOS missions, requested the State Party to inform the site management authorities of the World Heritage properties in China that major projects of this type should not be undertaken without prior evaluation of all environmental impacts, and for the Committee to be provided with information prior to their implementation. The Bureau also requested the State Party to provide more training opportunities to the staff of the site in (1) tourism management, including measures to monitor and mitigate the impact of tourism; and (2) management tools for biodiversity protection. The Bureau recommended that the report of the IUCN/ICOMOS missions be transmitted to the relevant Chinese authorities and requested the State

120

Party, with the support of UNESCO and the advisory bodies, to develop a programme of action to ensure follow-up to the recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS missions. Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) (see paragraph I.37) ICOMOS noted that, of the 16 recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of October 1999, only some are referred to in the report received from the Peruvian authorities and others still needed to be approved and/or implemented. The advisory body also observed that it was necessary to undertake the study on the carrying capacity of the Sanctuary and the Ciudadela as a basis for other programmes and projects such as access to the site, tourism use as well as protection of natural and cultural resources etc. IUCN welcomed the progress made concerning the establishment of a national co-ordinating Committee and the management committee of the Historic Sanctuary as well as the approved fire prevention plan. IUCN recommended encouraging the Government of Japan to finance the landslide project and acknowledged the continuous support of the Government of Finland. IUCN furthermore noted that the installation of the cable car while retaining the road access would add to the problem of visitor numbers which the Peruvian Management Unit is addressing through a study on the carrying capacity. IUCN also recalled the monorail that led to the elimination of ground access at Mt. Emei in China and suggested that the Peruvian authorities include such an approach in their planning process. The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the accident that had occurred on the site during the production of a beer commercial, when a crane that formed part of the film team’s equipment, fell on the Intihuatana or stone sundial, chipping off a piece of stone. A detailed report reached the World Heritage Centre in October 2000, prepared by an assessment mission to Machu Picchu, which examined the damage as well as initial actions taken in response to the accident. The Centre also informed the Bureau of the preparation of a Technical Co-operation request for an international expert in stone restoration. Several Bureau members expressed concern and suggested that guidelines for the use of World Heritage sites should be devised, although there was no agreement concerning a site specific or general approach. ICOMOS suggested that the use of World Heritage sites in general, not only the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, should be regulated by some form of charter or guidelines to avoid damage in comparable situations. The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau of the experience with management and use-regulations at Stonehenge. The Chairperson concluded that the issue was of general concern and that the United Kingdom was in a position to supply valuable information for other States Parties. The Bureau commended the State Party for the actions taken to protect the property, especially the advances made

in consolidating the institutional structure for the management of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau urged the Peruvian authorities to consider and implement all recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of October 1999. It also requested the authorities to submit a further progress report on the implementation of the mission recommendations, particularly the consolidation of the institutional structure and the development of the carrying capacity study and the cable car project, by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Upon receipt of this report the Bureau may decide whether a further field mission to review progress made would be necessary. The Bureau furthermore expressed serious concern over the accident that damaged one of the main monuments at Machu Picchu, the Intihuatana Sundial. It recommended the Peruvian authorities to review its policy for the use of the World Heritage site for commercial purposes. It requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on the accident, the restoration efforts taken and the policy review by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. CULTURAL HERITAGE III.2 The Bureau examined the state of conservation of a total of twenty-eight cultural heritage properties which were presented in Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.203/5. The relevant paragraph number is indicated below the property name. i) Cultural properties which the Bureau

recommended for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan) (see paragraph I.52) The Bureau recalled the Committee and Bureau’s request for a reactive monitoring mission to be organized by the Centre and ICOMOS following receipt of information concerning the demolition of the 375 year-old hydraulic works, an essential monument within the site of the Shalamar Gardens. The Bureau examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission undertaken in October 2000, which was summarized as below: The 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens The three water tanks forming part of the 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens had been irretrievably demolished over a period of ten days in June 1999 by the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore (MCL) of the Provincial Government of Punjab in order to widen the Grand Trunk Road located along the southern wall of the Shalamar Gardens. Two of the three water tanks originally constructed in brick and mortar were demolished and what remains are parts of its walls at the ground level. The third

121

tank now, considerably reduced in size, stands alone along the Grand Trunk Road (GT Road) threatened by traffic. These tanks were linked to the canal “Shah Nahar”, which once irrigated the fountains of the Shalamar Gardens. The site of the ancient hydraulic works after the demolition has been used by the MCL as a parking lot for heavy trucks (eastern part), and partially for the sale of furniture by a vendor (western part) who has illegally occupied the site. The mission found that: �� the legal ownership and boundary of the area where

the hydraulic works were located are unclear; �� the Department of Archaeology and Museums (DoA)

of the Federal Government of Pakistan protested several times against the demolition work but to no avail;

�� alternative proposals drawn up by the DoA for widening the GT Road were not given due consideration;

�� the DoA was requested by the Commissioner of Lahore and the Governor of Punjab to propose corrective measures on 14 August 2000. However, at the time of the ICOMOS-UNESCO Mission in October 2000, the DoA had not yet submitted a proposal.

Perimeter Walls of the Shalamar Gardens Examination of the exterior of the perimeter wall around the Shalamar Gardens, the three terraced gardens and the Naqqar Khana, the garden to the east, indicated that despite efforts made by the DoA to mobilize resources and the co-operation of the various authorities concerned, restoration and rehabilitation of the historic monuments and gardens had not progressed. Difficulties in implementing the Recommendations of the 1998 ICOMOS mission that had been adopted by the DoA during a 1999 UNESCO mission, were also noted. Although the 1998 ICOMOS mission had been informed that funds had been made available for restoration activities in the Naqqar Khana, there was no evidence that such works had been implemented. During the past year, a modern hydraulic system was installed to supply water to the upper two terraces located at the southern part of the Shalamar Gardens. The natural stone decorating the eastern and western entrance gates within the lowest northern terrace were being replaced by hand-carved stone at the time of the October 2000 Mission. Both sides of the perimeter wall have deteriorated (peeling plaster and flaking mud mortar, advertisements painted on the outside, vandalism, graffiti, illegal construction along the walls, damage to the original hand-painted decoration on the outside, humidity rising at the base of the wall caused by raising the ground level along the outside walls, aggravated by the construction of paved sidewalks against the wall along the northern and western sides, garbage).

Awareness of the unique character, historical significance, and World Heritage values of the Shalamar Gardens appeared to be low. Threats facing the Shalamar Gardens The integrity and authenticity of the 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens have been severely damaged by the demolition of the greater part of the hydraulic works, the Shah Nahar, located on the opposite side of the Grand Trunk Road. The property is threatened by serious and specific danger, and to conserve this site, major operations are necessary. All parts of the site are subject to “ascertained danger” due to serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornamental features, town-planning coherence, and significant and important loss of historic authenticity and cultural significance. The site is subject to “potential danger” due to a lack of effective means to implement existing conservation policies for the site in the face of rapid urbanisation of the greater Lahore City and its surrounding areas. The State Party should define and implement a “rescue programme” as soon as possible in order to safeguard the remains of the hydraulic works. Legal, political, financial and management measures are needed to redress the situation. There is no structured co-operation between the federal and local authorities concerned. Unchecked growth (human settlements, traffic, etc) undermine the integrity and authenticity of the site. Priority actions recommended by the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission The authorities are urged to undertake conservation of the perimeter wall and of the gates. This will require full co-operation of the Metropolitan Co-operation of Lahore, and may require establishment of a sound drainage system near the walls to prevent further damage caused by humidity undercutting the walls. The authorities are urged to prioritise for the restoration (not reconstruction) of the pavilions and other historic monuments within the Shalamar Gardens. The authorities are urged to revitalize the garden layout and water works, based upon archaeological research and scientific analysis of the original layout of the gardens. The authorities are urged to establish a co-ordination body with representatives of all stakeholders concerned in the protection and utilisation of the Shalamar Gardens. UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS, ICCROM and other bodies will need to provide financial and technical support in developing a long-term management plan to ensure the development and conservation of this unique site.

122

Conclusion The ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe the Shalamar Gardens of Lahore on the List of World Heritage in Danger, taking into due consideration the state of conservation of the site, the ascertained and potential threats, and the positive response from the State Party concerning the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger during discussions held between the Centre and the authorities concerned since 1999. Deliberations by the Bureau during its twenty-fourth extraordinary session The Secretariat informed the Bureau that consultations between the Representatives of the Government of Pakistan, the Director-General of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, and the World Heritage Centre had taken place since 1999 concerning the possibility of nominating the property for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was informed that representatives of Pakistan to UNESCO and the DoA indicated that the Government is considering the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. A formal letter of request that was expected prior to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, had not been received. The Bureau expressed serious concern over the complete loss of two of the three hydraulic works, and the partial demolition of the third hydraulic work. Taking note of the previous assistance requested by the State Party, and recognizing that the property is threatened by serious and specific danger, necessitating major operations to ensure the protection of the remains of an essential historic monument within the property, the Bureau recommended that the Committee examine the state of conservation of this site at its twenty-fourth session, with a view to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, at the request of the State Party. The Bureau recommended that the Committee request the State Party to define and implement a "rescue programme" as soon as possible in order to safeguard the remains of the former hydraulic works, through consolidation as an archaeological relic of the remaining foundations of two tanks, by taking measures to prevent further deterioration of what still remains of the third tank with its brick arches, and by fencing off the site on which these remains are located from the immediate surroundings so that it is no longer directly accessible. Parking on the site of the first and second tanks should be prohibited as soon as possible, and the Bureau recommends the Committee underline the equally urgent need to adequately conserve the remains of the third tank, currently being used both as a toilet and a garbage disposal area. Considering the extent of destruction and loss of the original materials of the two demolished tanks, reconstruction is no longer possible. For the area around the remains of the hydraulic works, the Bureau recommends that the Committee request the State Party to provide clarification concerning ownership, land use and the legal status of the land within 200 feet of these

hydraulic works, particularly in view of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, No. XXXIV of 1985 (The Punjab Gazette, Lahore, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1985) applicable for this site. The Bureau underlined that the state of conservation of this property illustrates a case where world heritage values of a property had been severely damaged due to insufficient attention given to conservation needs in the planning and implementation of public works. Historic City of Zabid (Yemen) (see paragraph I.42) The Secretariat presented its report, including new information following the mission in October 2000. Following a question raised by the delegate from Hungary about the position of the Yemen authorities concerning the State Party’s request to inscribe the Historic City of Zabib on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Secretariat informed the Bureau that an official letter of 17 October 2000 had been received requesting the Committee to consider an inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger as this would be necessary to safeguard the site. The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following: “The Committee notes the request of the Yemeni authorities to inscribe the Historic Town of Zabib on the List of World Heritage in Danger and decides to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to send a multidisciplinary team in order to evaluate the situation and take further actions.” ii) State of conservation report of cultural

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) (see paragraph I.49) The Bureau recalled that the Committee had repeatedly expressed concern for this site and deferred inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992. Recognizing the continuing loss of authenticity of the urban fabric of the site, the Committee at its twenty-third session decided to again defer decision on in-danger listing until the twenty-fourth session. The Committee also decided to send a High Level Mission in 2000 to ensure consultations with representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to transmit the Committee’s concern and to convince the authorities of the merit of in-danger listing. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September 2000. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reported on the conclusive findings and final considerations of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site, presented in WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.4. He drew the

123

attention of the Bureau to the state of conservation of the site, much of which had not improved since 1999. The Bureau was informed of the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to protect the seven Monument Zones composing the site. The Director reported that the authorities had emphasized the difficulties in imposing international standards in the conservation of privately-owned historic buildings without substantial subsidy and technical support. The Director informed the Bureau that no new plans had been put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress the persistent and continued deterioration of the materials, structures, ornamental features, and overall architectural coherence in most Monument Zones. The High Level Mission was received positively by the representatives of the central and local government authorities including an audience with His Majesty the King. The Director informed the Bureau, however, that the mission was unable to convince the representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal on the constructive aims of the system of in-danger listing, notably to mobilise the support of policy makers at the highest level and international donors. Finally, the Bureau was informed that the High Level Mission concluded that should no new measures be undertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the vernacular architecture surrounding the public monuments, and consequently damaging the world heritage values of this unique and universally significant site. The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, who led the High Level Mission, thanked the Director of the World Heritage Centre for his comprehensive presentation. The Chairperson stressed that the gravity of the situation should not be underestimated and reminded the Bureau that the decision of the Committee whether or not to inscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-fourth session would reflect upon the credibility and moral responsibility of the World Heritage Convention and its Committee. The Delegate of Finland, who participated in the High Level Mission as both a Vice-President of the Committee as well as the ICOMOS Representative during the mission, underscored the complexity of the site, composed of seven Monument Zones located in different geographic areas at considerable distances from each other and in different conservation conditions. He emphasized that the principal cause of concern is the difficulty in conserving the historic urban fabric, as the public monuments are in generally good condition. The Delegate of Finland recommended that the Committee defer inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as the inscription of the entire site could be discouraging for the authorities and the people of Monument Zones. ICOMOS concurred with this view. The Delegate of Australia, underlining the importance of the Committee’s decision, stated that a decision by the Committee to inscribe the site on the List of World

Heritage in Danger against the wish of the State Party would set a precedent, which could impact upon the work of the Convention and the States Parties' common goals to protect world heritage. He informed the Bureau that Australia did not consider that under the Convention the Committee was empowered to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned and without the request for assistance by the State Party. Discussions ensued on the objectives of the Convention and international co-operation. The Delegate of Hungary recognized the challenges in urban heritage protection in the face of rapid urbanization, change in urban life style and economic growth. The use of the Convention as a mechanism for mobilising further political commitment and international technical co-operation was underscored. The Delegate of Greece recalled that the Committee had deferred the inscription of the Kathmandu Valley on the List of World Heritage in Danger numerous times. She pointed out the evident difficulty faced by both the Committee and the State Party in implementing the Convention to safeguard the site for future generations. With reference to the debate on the necessity for State Party consent for in-danger listing, she stated that Article 11.4 allows the Committee to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned. Recalling her intervention at the twenty-third session of the Committee, she reminded the Bureau that she had foreseen that the High Level Mission would not be able to convince the Nepali Government on the merits of the in-danger listing system. She drew the Bureau’s attention to the significant loss of historic buildings within Bauddhanath Monument Zone where there were approximately 88 historic buildings surrounding the stupa in 1979, which decreased to 27 in 1993, and 15 in 1998. Recalling that the serious state of conservation of this site has been examined at 19 sessions of the Committee and Bureau since 1992, the Delegate of Greece stressed the gravity of the situation and the need to ensure the credibility of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List. The Delegate of Mexico reminded the Bureau that the seven Monument Zones of the Kathmandu Valley were nominated and inscribed together as one site in 1979, exemplifying the heritage of Nepalese art and culture at its height. He emphasized the importance of “preventive conservation” in addressing the conservation of historic cities to prevent irreversible damages. The Delegate of Zimbabwe reminded the Bureau that the conclusive findings of the High Level Mission underscored the fact that Kathmandu Valley was in danger. Regardless of whether or not it was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, he suggested the possibility of deleting certain parts of the Monument Zones as a means of retaining the credibility of the World Heritage Convention. In the discussion which followed, the Bureau members agreed that the Committee would need to define

124

procedures for examining cases such as Kathmandu Valley, where certain world heritage values or components justifying inscription have been irreversibly lost. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted the shortcomings of Committee decisions in previous years for having inscribed properties which lacked adequate management and conservation mechanisms, and underscored the importance of the periodic reporting exercise in addressing related problems. The Observer of Nepal expressed his Government’s appreciation for responding favourably to requests for technical and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO have been providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970’s. He recalled the great pride of the Nepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed the Bureau that they were unaware until 1992 of the world heritage conservation standards and the errors made. The Observer of Nepal stated that Government instability up until 1998 had prevented the enforcement of measures to protect the urban heritage of the site. The Observer reiterated the Government’s strong commitment to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission, and requested that the Bureau provide the Government of Nepal sufficient time to redress the situation and defer decision on in-danger listing until 2004. The Chairperson reminded the Bureau that the deliberations taking place were repeating discussions held in Marrakesh during its twenty-third extraordinary session. Noting the importance of elaborating a better process for inscribing properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Chairperson offered to host a meeting in Morocco to discuss this issue separately in a more comprehensive manner. The Bureau adopted the following recommendation for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fourth session: “The Bureau examined the findings of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley which was undertaken between 24 to 29 September 2000, which held consultations with the Representatives of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and was granted an audience with His Majesty the King. The Bureau, noting the findings of the High Level Mission, expressed its appreciation to the State Party for its continued efforts to enhance the management and conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The Bureau reiterated its deepest concern for the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in most of the seven Monument Zones composing the site are significantly threatening its integrity and authenticity. The Bureau recommended that the Committee request the State Party to produce a new structured framework for

monitoring all corrective measures by His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, to be reviewed by the Committee within the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise in 2002. The Bureau further recommended that other States Parties be engaged in the conservation and monitoring effort by providing technical and financial assistance to the concerned authorities of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Bureau recommended that the Committee reserve an appropriation within the 2001 International Assistance budget, to finance specific time-bound activities related to the protection of the urban fabric within the World Heritage site in order to strengthen the State Party’s capacity. The Bureau recommended the Committee to consider the issue of the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in a broader context, in order to develop appropriate criteria and process for the Committee to evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To this end, the Bureau welcomed the offer by the Government of Morocco to host a meeting on this issue, and recommends that the Committee decides on a general schedule for the meeting and allocate funds for the organisation of this meeting." Taxila (Pakistan) (see paragraph I.51) The Secretariat presented the findings and recommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to Taxila (1-5 September 2000) organised by the Centre and ICOMOS following the request of the Committee and Bureau. The purpose of the mission was to examine the state of conservation of the Bhir Mound archaeological area, where a football stadium had been constructed. The findings and recommendations included the following points: 1. The mission was convinced that the work on the

stadium had been stopped and that the demolition of the walls would soon be commenced. It is recommended that action be taken to conserve and present Bhir Mound site as an important part of the Taxila World Heritage site.

2. Recent excavation of Bhir Mound and removal of

vegetation was observed. Although appreciative of the efforts made by the concerned authorities in undertaking excavations of Bhir Mound, the authorities of Pakistan are urged to place priority on conservation and presentation of archaeological areas already excavated and exposed, rather than engage in new excavation exercises. In this context, the authorities are urged to elaborate a comprehensive management programme for the development and conservation of Taxila as a matter of priority.

3. Illicit excavations did not appear to constitute a major

threat to the site. Nevertheless, the national programme to prevent illegal excavation and illicit trafficking of artefacts should be applied to Taxila.

125

4. Demarcation of the existing boundaries and buffer

zones and the preparation of management and maintenance programmes for each of the archaeological areas composing Taxila is required, not only to conserve individual monuments, but also to protect the natural setting and historical evolution of Taxila in its entirety.

5. Impact assessment studies of the heavy industries and

military compounds within the Taxila Valley, which will require substantial efforts on the part of the authorities concerned, should be carried out.

6. Co-operation between planning, development and

cultural heritage protection agencies is encouraged as a matter of priority.

7. The authorities may wish to consider proposing the

site for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger to encourage the mobilisation of financial and technical assistance.

The Secretariat also presented the information transmitted by the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO on 10 November 2000, which provided updated information concerning actions taken by the Government. According to this updated information,

(a) ownership of Bhir Mound site has been restored to the Department of Archaeology and Museums and the structures of the sports stadium are to be dismantled in November 2000;

(b) excavation on Bhir Mound is continuing,

supported by additional funding from the National Fund for Cultural Heritage;

(c) heavy industries have not had any adverse effect

so far on the Taxila World Heritage areas;

(d) Custom Authorities are taking strict measures to prevent illegal trafficking of artefacts from the Taxila areas.

The Bureau recommended the following decision for adoption by the Committee: “The Committee takes note of the Reports submitted by the State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre concerning the state of conservation of the Taxila World Heritage site. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the authorities of Pakistan for taking the necessary measures to mitigate the threats caused by the construction of the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila. The Committee expresses its appreciation for the efforts made by the State Party to strictly control illicit trafficking of sculptures from Buddhist archaeological remains illegally excavated, but nevertheless reiterates its request to the State Party to continue strengthening the protection of unexcavated areas in Taxila from illegal looters. The Committee requests the Government of Pakistan to implement the Recommendations formulated by ICOMOS

following the October 2000 ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission. The Committee requests the State Party to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations, for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session in September 2001. Finally, in order to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in regularly monitoring the numerous and physically dispersed archaeological remains of the Taxila World Heritage site, the Committee expresses its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party, and requests the State Party to consider nominating the site for the List of World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.” Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland) (see paragraph I.63) The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the receipt of new information transmitted by the Under-Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and the Permanent Delegate of Poland to UNESCO, following the finalisation of the working document. The information reported concerned the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, a proposal to build a "visitor centre" at the entrance of the national Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and a discotheque in the vicinity of the site. In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State specified that the Polish Government gives great importance to the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and further indicates that the Programme’s first phase will end in 2001 and its second phase is planned for 2002 -2007. He expressed regret concerning the delay of the work assigned to the International Group of Experts, as so far there has been no meeting in 2000. He further reported that the Government planned to integrate this group of international experts within the structure of the International Council for Auschwitz. In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State also informed the Secretariat about modifications to the construction plan (which initially included a shopping mall). This was revised to consist of a service centre including a restaurant, a car park, bookshops for publications on the history of the Museum, a flower shop and rest-rooms. This proposal is being studied by the Polish Government and local authorities. Concerning the discotheque, the Under-Secretary of State stressed that, contrary to previous information submitted, the building in which the discotheque is situated, is 2 kilometres distance from the site; it is a building constructed after the Second World War, replacing a tannery used for slave labour during the War. He underlined the importance that the Polish Governement gives to this matter and further stated his Government’s will to find solutions within the limits of the law. The Under-Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of establishing an inventory of monuments and locations within the World Heritage area that could be placed under special protection.

126

Finally, the Under-Secretary of State recalled that should the Bureau request additional information relating to the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, a summary of the annual reports prepared by the division responsible for this Programme could be submitted to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau for examination. A representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was given the floor as observer on this subject. He underlined the fact that the opening of the discotheque in the vicinity of the site was contrary to the spirit of the site itself, as a place of memory, and that all efforts should be undertaken to maintain the site’s World Heritage values. He urged the Bureau to ask the Committee to take appropriate action by studying a list prepared by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre of twenty-one monuments and locations within a buffer zone around the site. In light of the information provided, ICOMOS expressed its concern on this issue, and stressed the need to establish a buffer zone, which had not been foreseen at the time of the site’s inscription in 1979. ICOMOS further emphasized the need to impose a system, designed to control development within the buffer zone, once identified. The Delegate of Zimbabwe underlined the necessity to identify a new perimeter of the site, and that it would be useful to ask ICOMOS to undertake a site mission and present its conclusions to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. The Delegate of Greece supported the proposal formulated by ICOMOS to establish a buffer zone and control and use of the buildings. The Delegate of Finland recalled that the issues at stake were strongly linked to moral values and supported the proposals made by the other delegations. The Bureau agreed to recommend the following to the Committee : "The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Secretariat and by the Under-Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim . The Committee recalls that, at its twenty-third session (Kyoto, 1998), it confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the Declaration of March 1997; this process should continue in a consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the belief that no steps should be taken unless consensus had been reached. The Committee expresses its concern regarding the delay in implementing the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim and the work of the international group of experts. It urges the Polish authorities to address these issues without further delay.

Concerning the construction projects within the zones related physically or symbolically to the Concentration Camp, the Committee requests the State Party to avoid any action that could compromise reaching consensus between the authorities, institutions and organizations involved and to ensure that the sacred nature of the site and its environment are preserved giving special attention to their integrity. The Committee reiterates its request to the State Party, previously made during its twenty-fourth session to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and requests the State Party to submit this detailed report by 15 April 2001, at the latest, for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Secretariat to maintain close contacts with the State Party and other parties involved in order to support planning actions and the process for establishing a consensus as indicated in the decision adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session. In conclusion, the Committee reiterates the need for the establishment of a buffer zone to be created around the site, as well as a plan for the implementation of development control mechanisms within this newly identified area. It urges the Polish authorities to pay particular attention to this matter and to submit a report on the progress made in the identification of a buffer zone and control mechanism for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau." (iii) State of conservation reports of cultural

properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

Brasilia (Brazil) (see paragraph I.56.) ICOMOS emphasized the need for a mission to investigate reports on the threats to the environment of the site. In response, the Observer of Brazil stated that even though there was increased demographic pressure, construction activity concentrated on areas outside the main urban design, did not threaten the integrity of the World Heritage site. The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to the site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the issues raised above by 15 April 2001 to be examined at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, and furthermore requested an ICOMOS/UNESCO mission to examine the state of conservation of Brasilia. Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China) (see paragraph I.44) ICOMOS presented the findings of its study concerning the six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, undertaken at the request of the Committee.

127

It noted that there was some inconsistency in the criteria applied in some cases. In 1999, a ICOMOS - ICCROM Joint Mission had recommended that cultural criterion (iv) be removed. After closely studying the criteria applied for all six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, ICOMOS did not support the proposal of the Joint Mission, recommending that the two criteria currently applied be retained. The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that the Government of China had expressed its agreement to the final recommendation made by ICOMOS to retain the two cultural criteria currently applied for the Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian. The Bureau decided not to change the criteria currently applied to the Peking Man Site of Zhoukoudian. The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to make the comparative thematic study undertaken by ICOMOS available to States Parties to contribute to enhancing understanding of similar sites. The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteria justifying the inscription of a number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored the importance and usefulness of the Periodic Reporting Exercise as a mechanism for re-examining the application of natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureau agreed that the 6-year cycle exercise would provide the opportunity for revising inscription criteria, removing anomalies and ensuring greater consistency. The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China) (see paragraph I.45) The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, ICOMOS and the Secretariat, and requested the State Party for clarifications regarding the buffer and construction-restricted zones of the site. The Bureau noted with appreciation, the explanation provided by the State Party on the established procedures for the approval of international co-operation activities for cultural heritage, and the offer by the State Administration for Cultural Heritage to assist international expert groups interested in working in Lhasa. The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to undertake a mission and to report on the situation to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001. Islamic Cairo (Egypt) (see paragraph I.38) The Secretariat presented the report on Islamic Cairo, including the recommendations of the July 2000 ICOMOS mission to report on the state of conservation of the Al-Azhar Mosque. The Bureau thanked the Egyptian Government for their ongoing financial support in the preservation of Islamic Cairo. For 2001, the Bureau recommended the Egyptian

Authorities launch the next phase in the Islamic Cairo Project, being the conservation of Shareh Al Mouizz area, initiated by a seminar on the approach and actions to be taken and to be held in Cairo in the beginning of 2001. The Bureau supported the holding of a seminar in Cairo as the start of the next phase for Islamic Cairo, together with an expert and high-level mission to Cairo, including the Director of the World Heritage Centre, in order to review the project and discuss follow-up actions for the year 2001. ICOMOS expressed concerns in relation to the Al Azhar Mosque, in particular the impacts of traffic and the need to monitor the structural condition of the Mosque. He also raised the important issue of the appropriateness of modern intervention techniques that conflict with principles of conservation. Furthermore, ICOMOS is well aware of the sensitive and delicate issue of potential conflicts between spiritual requirements and the protection of religious monuments. Special care should be taken when evaluating the restoration of monuments that still are in religious use. The Chairperson endorsed the ICOMOS concerns. Roman Monuments, Cathedral St. Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany) (see paragraph I.59) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had received some comments from ICOMOS on the report transmitted by the German authorities. These comments stressed that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the State Party in its report, the safeguarding of the remains of the water system to the north of the amphitheatre, is a central issue and that every effort should be made to conserve it for further scholarly study and presentation to the general public. ICOMOS underlined the need for an adequate and comprehensive long-term planning system for Trier. The Bureau expressed the view that the Roman City wall and the Roman water system discovered to the north of the Roman amphitheatre in Trier, represents exceptional facets of Roman town planning that are not well represented north of the Alps. The Bureau requested the German authorities to formulate and implement without delay planning regulations that will ensure the long-term preservation of the archeological remains in this area. Palaces and Parks of Postdam and Berlin (Germany) (see paragraph I.60) ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the report provided by the State Party did not fully answer all the questions regarding the site. In particular, the Havel project (German Unity project 17) seriously jeopardized the World Heritage values of the site. The Observer of the United Kingdom asked whether ICOMOS was requesting further information from the German authorities regarding this issue. ICOMOS clarified that this would enable it to present a thorough

128

report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. To accomplish this, close contact between the ICOMOS expert and the German authorities should be maintained. The Bureau noted the comments made by ICOMOS on the report transmitted by the State Party and that this issue will be further examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Classical Weimar (Germany) (see paragraph I. 61) The Bureau noted that ICOMOS expressed its concerns regarding the planned road, as it may have an adverse impact on the values of the site.

The Bureau requested the German authorities to submit a report on the possible impact of the construction of a road close to the Castle of Tiefurth, which forms part of the World Heritage site Classical Weimar, before 15 April 2001 in order that it may be examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the Secretariat, in cooperation with ICOMOS, to identify an independent expert to undertake a thorough analysis of this matter. Hortobágy National Park (Hungary) (see paragraph I.62) ICOMOS informed the Bureau that consultations with the State Party had taken place and reassured the Bureau that the accident had had a negative impact on the natural values, but no impact on the cultural values of the site. The Delegate of Hungary thanked the Bureau for the recommendation proposed and reassured trhe Bureau that the Government will do its best to remove any danger to the area and expressed his hope that a similar accident never will occur. He recalled that the Bureau requested a report from the Romanian authorities on prevention mesures which was discussed in relation to the natural site of the Danube Delta.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party for establishing a monitoring programme and many other organisations for their actions taken in response to this environmental disaster. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to provide reports on the results from this programme and give priority to the implementation of a restoration programme. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the monitoring programme, its action plan and the state of conservation by 15 April 2001. Khajuraho Groups of Monuments (India) (see paragraph I.46) The Bureau recalled that, following the information received from ICOMOS and ICCROM international experts concerning illegal encroachment within the site, the World Heritage Centre requested ICOMOS to organise a reactive monitoring mission. The Bureau was informed that the mission of the ICOMOS expert was postponed and was expected to take place in early 2001. The Bureau

therefore recommended the Committee agree that the Bureau examine the findings of the ICOMOS expert reactive monitoring mission at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001. Sun Temple of Konarak (India) (see paragraph I.47) The Bureau recalled that it had examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission at its twenty-fourth session. In order to mitigate potential threats caused by illegal encroachment and ad-hoc construction in areas surrounding the site, the Bureau had requested the authorities concerned to prepare urgently a Comprehensive Development Plan and requested the Secretariat to assist the State Party in mobilising international technical expertise and co-operation as required. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Government of India had not submitted its report on the progress made in preparing this Plan. However, a report on soil investigation, geo-radar studies, sampling and testing of stones of the Sun Temple of Konarak had been received by the Secretariat in November 2000. This report had been carried out by the Central Building Research Institute in September 1999 utilizing US$ 27,000 of the US$ 39,000 allocated in 1997 as Emergency Assistance for carrying out a thorough structural survey of the Sun Temple of Konarak. According to the investigations, the ground level profiles indicate no spread of the foundations of the Sun Temple. The lateral movement of the subsurface in the unconfined areas appears to be due to the structural load, but dating to previous years. The report found that the soil underneath the Temple has already settled and no further settlement is expected. The Bureau expressed its appreciation to the Indian authorities for carrying out the soil and stone analysis of the Sun Temple of Konarak site. The Bureau, informed that the structures are stable, thanked the authorities for their efforts to preserve and present the Sun Temple. Following the ICOMOS monitoring mission to the site undertaken in February 2000, the Bureau reiterated its request made at its twenty-fourth session to the State Party to urgently prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan to mitigate potential threats caused by illegal encroachment and ad-hoc construction in the areas surrounding the site, and requested the Secretariat to assist the State Party in mobilising international technical expertise and co-operation as required and appropriate. The Bureau requested the State Party to report on the progress made in developing the Plan and on the measures taken in favour of the conservation and development of this site for examination by the Bureau at the twenty-fifth extraordinary session in November 2001.

129

Petra (Jordan) (see paragraph I.39) The Secretariat presented its report on Petra, including the conclusions of the report of the ICOMOS mission in September 2000. The Bureau, having examined the ICOMOS report, thanked the Jordanian authorities for their efforts and strongly recommended them to take a high-level decision in order to prepare and implement a management plan and to support all the actions stated in the report. Town of Luang Prabang (Laos) (see paragraph I.48) The Bureau was informed that ICOMOS has identified an expert in hydro-engineering and soil mechanics to undertake a mission to evaluate the design and technical specifications of the riverbank consolidation project so that this Asian Development Bank-financed public works can resume after five months halt following the concerns expressed by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session in June-July 2000. The Secretariat also informed the Bureau that the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) is considering approval of a request from the Government of Laos to finance construction of a bridge over the Mekong River within the World Heritage protected area. The Bureau was informed that the State Party has been requested to make available the technical specifications of the bridge for review by the Committee. Having examined the report of the Secretariat, the Bureau expressed appreciation to the State Party and the Asian Development Bank for halting the planned works on the riverbank consolidation and the quay to take into consideration the outcome of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission. The Bureau noted with interest the report by the Secretariat on its cooperation with the Agence Francaise de developpement (AFD) to establish a system of subsidies and soft loans to be offered to owners of historic buildings located within the World Heritage protected area through a “Fund for Conservation Aid to the Local Population” and requested to be kept informed of developments. The Bureau requested the State Party to prepare, with support from the Secretariat, a full report for the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau on the national heritage protection laws and regulations, as well as information on all on-going national and international conservation and development projects related to Luang Prabang. The Bureau also requested the State Party to ensure protection of the urban wetlands and the traditional village form and vernacular architecture, which are as important as the historic monuments to the integrity of the site.

Byblos (Lebanon) (see paragraph I.40) The Bureau supported the March 2001 follow-up meeting in Byblos and the establishment of the Task Force for a Management and Master Plan for Byblos.

The Bureau reiterated its request for ICOMOS to carry out a mission to examine the state of conservation of the archaeological mound and the presentation of the Byblos World Heritage site. The ICOMOS Representative explained that the reason why a mission had not taken place earlier, as was indicated in the Secretariat’s report, was to avoid duplication with the preparation of periodic reporting and the concurrent UNESCO mission. He informed the Bureau that a mission was to take place in January 2001. Ksar Aït Ben Haddou (Morocco) (see paragraph I.41) Following the presentation by the Secretariat, the Chairperson spoke on behalf of Morocco, and confirmed that the mission had taken place at the request of the Moroccan authorities. The mission included an expert with long-standing experience in Morocco, and particularly in earthen architecture. The Chairperson presented a brief overview of the complex situation at this site, and explained the difficulty for the Government to intervene in a situation where most of the buildings are privately owned. In spite of this, the Government has made the necessary contacts and decided to implement the recommendations presented by the mission. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation of the work undertaken by the expert. Based on new information and the presentation by the Chairperson, the Bureau congratulated the Moroccan authorities for the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the expert report, and welcomed their proposal to conduct an evaluation of the activities by mid-2001 and to report on progress at the Bureau and the Committee at its meeting in November-December 2001. The Chairperson made it clear that, during 2001, the Moroccan authorities will do their utmost to implement the mission’s recommendations. He also gave the assurance that, should the proposed actions not be achieved, the Moroccan authorities will submit a request for inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate of Australia commended the Moroccan authorities for their commitment, and stated that the State Party’s approach was positive and would conserve its proper role in the spirit of the Convention. The Delegate of Greece commended the Moroccan authorities for their efforts, and for considering danger listing. She stated that danger listing is an effective tool for the protection of sites. Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) (see paragraph I.43) The Secretariat presented its report, including the recommendations of the ICOMOS mission in October 2000.

130

The Bureau recommended the authorities of Mozambique give the most urgent priority to the legal protection of the site, and to the appointment of a site manager and the preparation of a conservation plan that would involve the local population. The plan should be based on a rehabilitation and participation approach, including a comprehensive social and economic programme for the Island. The programme should: i) allow the local people to be economically

productive; ii) improve the infrastructure and stimulate the

economic base of the Island to combine conservation and development;

iii) determine a specific conservation policy to include the recuperation of the buildings which have potential, such as: • = those that could characterise the Island • = those reflecting the past with integrity • = those belonging to the Government • = those which could serve as adequate lodging

for the inhabitants of the Island; • = those which could serve for

visitation/tourism/research/training/cultural activities

The ICOMOS Representative reaffirmed the need for action and added that none of the recommendations of an earlier report from 1995 had been implemented. Inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger might be the most appropriate course of action. The Delegate of Zimbabwe emphasised the need for a more systematic approach to linkages between the Minister of Culture and the agencies responsible for cultural heritage management. He also requested that the ICOMOS report be viewed by the Mozambique Minister of Culture, so that appropriate action could proceed. He added that ICOMOS should be an active player in the process of raising local capacity. The Delegate of Greece questioned the inscription of this site on the World Heritage List, as there seemed to be a lack of legal instrument for the protection of the site, and questioned ICOMOS on whether this had been taken into account in their evaluation. The ICOMOS Representative explained that evaluation missions were not always sent to sites before 1993 and that this site had been inscribed in 1991. The Secretariat further clarified the point, recalling the important work undertaken under a joint UNDP/UNESCO project that included the drafting of legal protection. However, the draft plans have not been implemented. Given the socio-economic situation of Mozambique, it was of critical importance to take practical measures in order to rectify the situation.

Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal) (see paragraph I.50) The Bureau was informed by the World Heritage Centre that the International Technical Meeting to discuss alternative conceptual designs to rehabilitate the Maya Devi Temple was scheduled to take place in March 2001. Noting that the Maya Devi Temple was both a fragile archaeological site and a living site of great religious importance and a major destination of Buddhist pilgrims, the Bureau requested the findings of this International Technical Meeting to be reported to its twenty-fifth session. In the meantime, the Bureau requested the authorities to continue implementing the recommendations made by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, and to report to its twenty-fifth session in June 2001 on any further measures taken to enhance the management and conservation of the site. Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama: Portobelo – San Lorenzo (Panama) (see paragraph I.57) ICOMOS stated that the information concerning the lack of management and the precarious state of conservation of the site had been received from two distinguished ICOMOS members. The advisory body’s representative also mentioned that, upon receipt of the report that the Secretariat had requested the State Party to submit, the Bureau may decide whether a field mission to review the situation on the site would be necessary. The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to the site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the state of conservation by 15 April 2001 to be examined at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Archaeological Site of Chavín (Peru) (See paragraph I.58) The Bureau commended the State Party for its efforts to ensure the conservation of the site but emphasised the importance of a Master Plan for well co-ordinated short and long-term actions to be taken. The Bureau furthermore encouraged the State Party authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in the endeavour to generate the necessary funds for safeguarding of the site. The Bureau requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on the progress made by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (see paragraph I.53) The Bureau examined the report on the state of conservation presented in the Working Document. The Bureau underscored the information provided by the Secretariat that the Ifugao Rice Terraces are extremely fragile, where human land-use has been in balance with this mountainous environment for centuries. The Bureau recalled that this was the most prominent justification to

131

inscribe the Ifugao Rice Terraces as World Heritage in 1995. There is a continuous and essential shift in the relationship between human land- use and the environment, and the Bureau underlined the need to continuously monitor the socio-economic and physical changes within this cultural landscape. Although a valid GIS system is an important tool to achieve, such monitoring, as previously discussed by the Committee, the Bureau recognized that the problems are complex and a GIS database alone may not be sufficient. The Bureau noted that a comprehensive management plan for the site had not yet been elaborated, in spite of the Committee’s request in 1995 at the time of the site’s inscription on the World Heritage List. Recognizing the challenges in specifying and implementing a management plan for a complex cultural landscape inhabited and owned by a large population, the Bureau was convinced that such a comprehensive management plan was essential, as in other comparable cases such as Lake Baikal in the Russian Federation. The Bureau, noting the concern expressed by the Secretariat regarding the sustainability of the on-going GIS project and consequently of the management of the site as a whole, requested the Centre to urgently organize a reactive monitoring mission to the site together with ICOMOS and IUCN, to discuss the following issues with the authorities of the Philippines:

�� elaboration of measures to overcome difficulties in activating the GIS system,

�� evaluation and provision of technical advice concerning the type and quality of data to be gathered and utilized to enable the full protection and sustainable development of the site, and

�� definition of the aims and scope of the permanent agency to manage and conserve the Philippines Cordilleras, currently under consideration by the national authorities.

Recalling the allocation of considerable funds for mapping the Ifugao Rice Terraces by the Committee in 1998, the Bureau expressed its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in sustainably managing the fragile cultural resources of this property. The Bureau encouraged the national authorities to give priority to the creation of a permanently staffed agency responsible for the implementation of the site’s conservation, preservation and development programmes, including the GIS mapping of the site, as well as its heritage resources. The Bureau requested the State Party to report, through the Secretariat by 1 September 2001 on the progress made with regard to the Above and to report to the twenty-fifth extraordinary session. Finally, the Bureau reiterated the request of the Committee to the State Party to submit the tourism development plan and management plan for the site.

Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines) (see paragraph I.54) The World Heritage Centre and the Representative of ICOMOS presented to the Bureau the findings of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions to the San Agustin Church in Paoay and San Agustin Church in Intramuros Manila. The Bureau noted that this ICOMOS Mission to the Paoay San Agustin Church formulated an 8-point Recommendation concerning the following issues:

1) General conservation; 2) Monitoring of movement of the cracks in the

main façade; 3) Further surveys needed for the structural stability; 4) Evaluation of the cause of the cracks and the

deformation of the façade; 5) Structural safety evaluation in the present

conditions; 6) Structural analyses for designing the seismic

intervention; 7) Materials for structural intervention; 8) Recommendation for use of a flow-chart for the

structural preservation of the Paoay Church; The Bureau also examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS Mission to the San Agustin Church of Intramuros Manila, which concluded that 1. It is essential that the community of the Augustinian

Order should stay in its original home.

2. The original layout or "footprint" of the Monastery is distinct and consists of two courtyards meeting along the diagonal axis of the site. The location of the courtyards on the diagonal axis may have been for reasons of cross-ventilation. It allows a wider visual entry to the Church. The adjacent garden may have acted as a parking place for some of the transport systems used in the past; this would have freed the narrow street and restricted the junction for other road users.

3. Before any further interventions for developing the

site are decided upon, the following studies should be undertaken:

��formulation of a master plan for the site,

addressing the uses of existing buildings in relation to future development needs, land-use studies, and proposals for the ideal development of the site;

��a detailed engineering study of the site; ��a detailed archaeological survey of the site.

The Bureau examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Missions to the Paoay Church of San Agustin and the Intramuros Manila Church of San Agustin. The Bureau requested the State Party to examine the possibility of adopting and implementing the ICOMOS mission recommendations, and requested the State Party to report to the Bureau at its

132

twenty-fifth extraordinary session in November 2001 on the progress made and measures taken. The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to make the comparative thematic study undertaken by ICOMOS to be made available to States Parties interested in the subject, as it would contribute in enhancing understanding of similar sites. The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteria justifying the inscription of a number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored the importance and usefulness of the Periodic Reporting Exercise as a mechanism for re-examining the application of natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureau agreed that the 6-year cycle Exercise would provide the opportunity for revising inscription criteria, removing anomalies and ensuring greater consistency. Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal) (see paragraph I.64) The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the joint mission IUCN/ICOMOS took place from 30 October to 3 November 2000. ICOMOS stressed that during the original evaluation mission assurances had been given by the State Party regarding the implementation of management and conservation programmes. However, little if any progress had been made in the intervening period. These points were raised in the report of the mission and will be dealt with in the coming years. The advisory bodies had made a number of proposals to the local authorities and would continue to maintain contact. The Bureau encouraged the Portuguese authorities to undertake a restoration programme and to improve the management of the cultural landscape of Sintra during the next six years. This includes the restoration of individual monuments, gardens, parks and forests. It recommended they develop a concept of dynamic conservation, to set up a programme of education and public awareness raising and to ensure the integrity of the buffer zone and avoid undertaking new works. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the State Party to provide a management plan for the site by the end of 2001. Following the joint IUCN-ICOMOS mission, four practical steps are requested :

1. Creation of an independent Cultural Landscape Advisory Committee

2. Creation of an advisory body/association of residents

3. The establishment of a public information, research and archives centre

4. An adjustment of the high protection area of the Natural Park to coincide with the core area of the World Heritage site.

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) (see paragraph I.65) The Secretariat indicated that it received on 22 November 2000, a report on the mission to Istanbul and Ankara by Messrs Stephane Yerasimos and Pierre Pinon undertaken

from 13-18 November 2000. The terms of reference of this mission to review progress in the preparation of the conservation plan of Istanbul, was extended to gathering information and making an initial assessment on the impact on the World Heritage values of Istanbul caused by the on-going construction of the Istanbul subway. The Bureau was informed that the State Party transmitted, by letter dated 16 November 2000, a map indicating the route of the planned subway with the location of stations, as well as an assessment containing technical details on the impact on the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul. The Bureau, upon examining the report of the Secretariat, expressed concern over the delay in the completion of the Conservation Plan by the Greater Istanbul Authority and the detailed conservation plan by the Fatih and Eminonu Municipalities. Regarding the Istanbul subway, the Bureau noted the information provided by the State Party by letter dated 16 November 2000, stating that: • = the route of the Istanbul subway and the Strait

Railway Tube Tunnel for the city of Istanbul was approved by the Ministry of Culture;

• = the Council has continued to assess the implementation of the projects, the urban design of the stations and bridge to be built on the Golden Horn;

• = all excavations of the station areas are carried out under the control of the Istanbul Archaeology Museum Directorate.

• = inspection of the cracks on the building of the guardian in the premises of the French General Consulate in Istanbul led the Council to conclude that the damage was not due to design but due to its implementation. The Council, by decision No. 118-78 of 7 June 2000, subsequently decided to issue a warning to the Greater Istanbul Authorities.

The Bureau expressed regret that the State Party did not inform the Committee of this major public work at its planning phase, in conformity with paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines, and requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS: to study the technical information made available by the State Party; undertake a mission to assess the impact of the subway construction on the World Heritage values of the site, and report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001. For matters requiring urgent attention, the Chairperson of the Committee should be alerted for instructions. Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam) (see paragraph I.55) The Bureau noted with interest the work underway in establishing the Housing Improvement Loan and subsidy scheme in co-operation with the Caisse des Depots et Consignation (CDC) within the framework of the Hue-Lille Metropole Programme (France), and requested the State Party to keep the Bureau informed of developments in this regard.

133

The Bureau, with regard to the emergency rehabilitation needs, requested the Secretariat to support the efforts of the State Party in seeking international assistance. Concerning the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Bureau requested the State Party to consider this as a means to promote international solidarity to meet the rehabilitation needs caused by the floods of November-December 1999. (iv) Reports on the state of conservation of

properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, which the Bureau noted:

Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg (Austria) Colonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) Amiens Cathedral (France) Palace and Park of Fontainebleau (France) Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico) Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of

Popocatepetl (Mexico) Historic City of Meknes (Morocco) The Observer of Germany raised the question of reports which were requested by the Committee at previous sessions and for which no information was brought back to the Committee, such as in the case of Pompei (Italy) discussed at the twenty-first session of the Committee. The Observer of Italy confirmed that the requested reports were submitted. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation for the clarification.

135

ANNEX XI

KAKADU WORLD HERITAGE SITE PRESENTATION IN CAIRNS to the WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Wednesday 29 November 2000 By Professor Brian Wilkinson ICSU Independent Science Panel [ISP]

Chairman, Ladies & Gentlemen Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation, on behalf of the ICSU ISP, of the ISP’s Final Report [WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF 20]. The members of the ISP who prepared the Final Report are: SLIDE 1

Professor Jane Plant (Assistant Director, British Geological Survey) Professor roger Green (University of Western Ontario) Dr Ben Klink (British Geological Survey) Dr John Rodda (President, International Association of Hydrological Sciences) Professor Brian Wilkinson (Formerly, Director Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK) Representative of IUCN – Professor Pierre Horwitz (Director, Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia)

SLIDE 2 Terms of Reference of the ISP WHC [July 1999]

“ … continues to have significant reservations … relating to mining and milling at Jabiluka” [JMA]

“ICSU to continue the work of the ISP

… to assess, in co-operation with the Supervising Scientist and the World Conservation Union [IUCN], the Supervising Scientist’s Response to the ISP Report”

IMPORTANT TO NOTE the ISP assessment made only in relation to the APPROVED proposals for JMA ISP findings DO NOT necessarily relate to any new proposals for the JMA

It is important to note in relation to the Jabiluka Mill Alternative [JMA] – [ this is for a sub-surface mine at Jabiluka to mill on site and store the tailing wastes deep under ground.] that the ISP assessment has only been made of the approved proposal for the JMA. The ISP findings do not necessarily relate to any new proposals at Jabiluka. The sequence of events leading up to the preparation of the ISP Final Report is given on the cover page of WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF20

SLIDE 3

October 1998 WHC concern over natural & cultural values of Kakadu in relation to Jabiluka

April 1999 Australia’s Supervising

Scientist’s Report to WHC May 1999 ICSU Independent Science Panel

Report to WHC -- Scientific uncertainties -- 17 recommendations July 1999 WHC – continuing scientific

reservations ISP, IUCN and SS to attempt to

resolve July 2000 ISP, IUCN site visit December 2000 ISP, ICUN present final reports

The site visit by ISP and IUCN in July 2000 to Kakadu and Jabiluka was particularly important. Additional information was provided in papers, reports and through extensive discussions which gave the ISP a much more detailed insight than formerly into the scientific and other issues associated with the approved proposal for the JMA and its potential to impact on the biology, ecology, hydrology etc of the Kakadu World Heritage Site. Turning now to the Recommendations which appear in the ISP’s Final Report – The Australian government has responded to each of these. The ISP found some of these responses satisfactory and some unsatisfactory. This was brought to the attention of the Bureau last week. It requested the ISP to work with the Australian Supervising Scientist and IUCN to attempt to resolve, prior to the meeting of this Committee, those Recommendations where the ISP viewed the response as being unsatisfactory. The following slides show the ISP’s principal Recommendations. Normal text indicates a satisfactory response by the Australian government and bold text and a ‘question mark’ identifies areas which the ISP believed needed further discussion.

136

SLIDE 4 Recommendations not fully addressed or arising from site visit ISP Recommendation – [Para 9.2(b)] New proposals for water management system or any other changes to the approved JMA to be subject to: - early stage discussion involving stakeholders - rigorous environmental assessment - fully independent review ? Contaminant simulation study on water management system required for: - approved JMA - - any new proposals ISP Recommendation [Para 9.2 (e)] Sediment monitoring and analysis on and adjacent to Jabiluka required ISP Recommendation [ Para 9.2 (f)] Extend risk assessment to mine life 40, 50, 60 years SLIDE 5 ISP Recommendation [Para 9.2(g)] Landscape and ecosystem monitoring and analyses in place immediately ? ISP Recommendation [Para 9.2(h)] Statement of intent that long-term monitoring continues after mining company obligations cease ISP Recommendation [Para 9.3] New monitoring and response arrangements for Supervising Scientist at Jabiluka (following leak at Ranger) - make known to WHC ISP Recommendations [para9.4] If ‘stand-by arrangements at Jabiluka are protracted the Supervising Scientist to review and report on any proposed action every 5 years During ‘stand-by’ the performance of the reverse osmosis treatment plant and irrigation to be subject to: - rigorous monitoring - independent scrutiny ?

SLIDE 6 ISP Recommendation [Para 9.6] Office of the Supervising Scientist needs: (1) Jabiluka Project Manager (2) Water resources specialist ? ISP Recommendatin [Para 9.7] Fully independent Advisory Committee to be established? The Recommendation concerning the new proposals for a water management system or any other changes to the approved JMA was that these should be subject to discussions involving stakeholders, rigorous environmental assessment and independent review. The Australian government, while accepting the first 2 requirements, made no reference to the need for a review procedure. For the 3 Recommendations, which were concerned with the need for a contaminant simulation study, sediment monitoring programme and a risk assessment for a mine life of 40, 50 or 60 years, the government’s response was satisfactory. Turning to landscape and ecosystem monitoring and analysis [SLIDE 5] – The Panel concluded that the risks to the World Heritage Site, as a result of a carefully designed, operated and monitored JMA as approved, are minimal. Nevertheless the region and the Site will be subject to changes unrelated to mining [climate change, invasive sps etc]. . The ISP therefore considers it prudent and necessary to put in place landscape and ecosystem analyses. In parallel with these a survey and monitoring programme should be established by the Supervising Scientist immediately. The IUCN fully supports this recommendation. The Australian response is unsatisfactory in the view of the ISP in that, while the intent is to undertake this work, it will be subject to resource availability. The WHC should request the government to put this work in place without delay. The ISP Recommendations concerning long-term monitoring, strengthening the role of the Supervising Scientist and a review of the stand-by arrangements at Jabiluka by the Supervising Scientist have been satisfactorily addressed by the government. However the recommendation that the performance of the reverse osmosis treatment plant and irrigation system should be subject to independent review was not accepted by the Australian government. The ISP found the quality of the OSS and eriss to be very high but recommended that within the OSS there should be: (i) a designated project manager for Jabiluka and (ii) an in-house specialism in water resource management [SLIDE 6]. The Australian government responded by accepting the need for a project manager but suggested that the water resources management post would be subject to a review of resource requirements. The ISP

137

would wish the WHC to request to the Australian government to allocate resources to enable this post to be filled. The final Recommendation concerned independent review. The present review arrangements, through the Mine Site Technical Committee, should be retained but they lack transparency and a fully independent perspective. It is noteworthy that a number of senior Australian scientists e.g. Prof. Wasson, White and others have raised issues that led to a reappraisal of some of the Jabiluka design procedures and monitoring approaches. Such independent but informal inputs are very positive, however the ISP and IUCN consider that such important interventions should not be left to chance. These should be focussed through an independent science advisory committee. Following discussion with the Supervising Scientist and IUCN over the last 2 days good progress has been made in relation to the independent review procedure. It appears that this can be accomplished through modifications to, but within the framework of, an existing scientific review committee. There is thus a satisfactory outcome in regard to this final Recommendation of the ISP. The ISP’s overall conclusions are given in SLIDE 7. This also indicates the ISP requirements with respect to additional monitoring, management arrangements and review. SLIDE 7 ISP Overall Conclusion Approved JMA Proposal • = Supervising Scientist has - Identified the principal risks to the natural values of

Kakadu - analysed and quantified with a high level scientific

certainty - shown risks to be small or negligible • = But - Unexpected impacts due to mining may arise 9see

IUCN Report) - Other impacts may occur e.g. climate change, invasive

species etc, so additionalmonitoring analyses & clear response procedures essential

• = Management arrangements to be improved • = Fully independent review procedure necessary Finally turning to new proposals for the JMA, [SLIDE 8] these are still under development.The ISP has had little information on these [indeed they lie outside the ISP brief]. However, if it can be clearly demonstrated that they reduce the risks, then they should be accepted. With such proposals there is the need for a detailed environmental analysis, a full stakeholder involvement [particularly of the Traditional Owners who have much to offer] at the earliest stage, transparency of process and independent review so as to ensure that Kakadu is not endangered.

SLIDE 8 New JMA Proposal ISP little information on these If it can be demonstrated that they reduce the risks, then accept However need - detailed environmental analyses - full stakeholder involvement at the earlies stage - transparency of process - full independent scientific advisiory committee to

ensure that the Park’s natural values are not endangered.

139

ANNEX XII

Statement by IUCN on Kakadu National Park

The World Heritage Committee at its 24th Ordinary Session adopted a resolution on Kakadu National Park World Heritage site that was based upon an agreed text between the International Scientific Panel of ICSU, IUCN and the Supervising Scientist of the Australian Government. At the 24th session of the World Heritage Committee, IUCN made the following statement which sets out its views on the issue of mining at Jabiluka in relation to the Kakadu World Heritage site.

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

WORLD HERITAGE SITE STATEMENT BY IUCN

1. IUCN believes that mining should not take place

within designated natural World Heritage sites. IUCN also believes that any mining operations on the edge of, or near World Heritage sites, should be subject to stringent risk analysis to ensure World Heritage values are not threatened. That, of course, is the test the World Heritage Committee should apply in this case.

2. There is a lesson to be learnt from the “Kakadu saga”.

During the evaluation process, more attention needs to be paid to potential threats to World Heritage sites and values. Evaluating possible threats from mining can be difficult and costly. But if the Committee is to avoid the complex and time-consuming arguments which have been a feature of this case, it would be better to identify such potential problems well in advance and as part of the evaluation process.

3. IUCN is now satisfied that the currently approved site

and mine do not threaten the biological and ecological systems of Kakadu National Park (it is not of course qualified to comment on any possible threats to human health).

It follows that:

IUCN might take a different view about any new or revised proposals that may be forthcoming in future and which would of course require appropriate assessment, including – in line with the precautionary principle – a full EIS for any significantly modified mining plans.

It also follows that:

IUCN recognises that there are other values – aesthetic as well as cultural values – which were not examined by the ISP but which are affected by the mine and about which IUCN still has concerns, which it has set out in the past and which have been well documented.

Moreover, IUCN appreciates that there are legitimate concerns of the Traditional Owners to be addressed - for example they should be involved in the monitoring programme.

4. IUCN very much hopes that the Australian

Government will respond quickly and positively to the request that it commence the additional analysis and monitoring programme recommended by the ISP and IUCN. It is self-evident, of course, that these measures should be in place before any mining commences.

5. In view of the change in the majority ownership of the

Jabiluka mine, IUCN would welcome a message from this Committee to the new owners – Rio Tinto - that they should undertake to comply with all undertakings given by the former owners, and will fulfil all their obligations towards the Kakadu National Park World Heritage site.

29th November, 2000

141

ANNEX XIII

Statement on the Report of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU by the Supervising Scientist of Australia

concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia

Thank you Mr Chairman for providing me with the opportunity to provide comment on the final report of the Independent Science Panel of ICSU. I would like to preface my comments by thanking Professor Wilkinson and the members of his panel who visited Kakadu in July, and also to the representative of the IUCN, Dr Pierre Horwitz, for the thoroughly cooperative and professional manner in which they conducted their discussions. The process was a very good example of scientific peer review and by the end of the visit there were no issues of science on which there was any disagreement between members of the panel and members of my team of staff and consultants. I would now like to draw the attention of members of the Committee to the overall conclusion of the final report of the ISP which states:

Overall the ISP considers that the Supervising Scientist has identified all the principal risks to the natural values of the Kakadu World Heritage site that can presently be perceived to result from the Jabiluka Mill Alternative proposal. These risks have been analysed in detail and have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty. Such analyses have shown the risks to be very small or negligible and that the development of the JMA should not threaten the natural World Heritage values of the Kakadu National Park

This conclusion, Mr Chairman, reached after detailed and lengthy consideration of possible threats to the natural values of Kakadu, clearly vindicates the overall conclusion of the report which I submitted to the Committtee in April 1999. I feel confident, Mr Chairman, that members of the Committee will now be reassured that the scientific issues on which the 1998 Mission to Kakadu expressed concern have all been resolved and that they can reach a firm conclusion that the natural values of Kakadu National Park are not threatened by the proposed development of a mine and mill at Jabiluka. In reaching its overall conclusion, the ISP made a number of observations related to processes that should, in its view, be followed in the final design of the project and on the ongoing regulation and monitoring process. As Professor Wilkinson has summarised, the ISP listed a series of recommendations on these issues and requested that the Australian Government implement the recommendations. In addition, the representative of the IUCN who accompanied the ISP to Kakadu in July made several recommendations that were taken into account by the ISP in its final report.

I draw to your attention the response of the Australian Government to the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN. This response is given as an attachment to letter of the Secretary of Environment Australia to the then Chair of the Committee in November 2000. As the Secreatary advised, Australia accepts the intent of all of the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN and will ensure that their implementation achieves the objectives outlined by the ISP and IUCN. During the course of the past few days, I have had discussions with the Chair of the ISP and with representatives of the IUCN to clarify the position of the Australian Government and to determine specific ways in which the intent of the recommendations can be met. Probably the most important residual issue for members of the ISP and the IUCN was to agree on a method of implementing the ISP recommendation on the establishment of an Independent Science Advisory Committee. The approach adopted by Australia has been to adapt the existing Committee structure that has been established under Australian law rather than to set up a new structure. The Australian Government has decided to amend the membership and role of the existing statutory scientific review committee to meet the needs identified by the ISP in its recommendation on the establishment of an Independent Science Advisory Committee. The chair and the majority of the voting members will be appointed following selection by the most appropriate body representing Australian scientists and engineers, possibly the Australian Academy of Science. This Committee will be able to report openly, independently and without restriction. Agreement has been reached on this approach between the ISP, the IUCN and Australia. An important issue raised by the ISP and the IUCN is that, although we have made rigorous efforts to identify all of the principal risks to the natural values of Kakadu National Park, and have shown these risks to be very small or negligible, unforeseen environmental impacts may occur in the future. The ISP, therefore, considers that, while such effects are unlikely, it would be prudent to put in place a more extensive monitoring program at both a local and a regional level. This program would be designed to detect any secondary, cumulative or interactive effects that may arise from the development of Jabiluka and to distinguish between such unlikely mining-related impacts and other impacts that may occur in the region that are not related to mining. The ISP agrees that Australia already has in place a monitoring program that addresses the principal risks and that these risks are very small or negligible. In addition,

142

the ISP agrees that risks at the landscape scale are minimal. It is my view, therefore, that the justification for an additional expensive landscape scale analysis and monitoring program is questionable for mining related issues alone. However, in the broader context of monitoring the natural World Heritage values of Kakadu, a program at the landscape scale has merit. Noting that implementation would have significant resource implications, the Supervising Scientist has recommended that a suitable program be considered by the Government in the context of other programs such as the monitoring of the impact of invasive species. The ISP and the IUCN wish to see such a program implemented and have drafted, in the Draft Decision before the Committee a recommendation that the Australian Government allocates resources for this purpose. The ISP recommended that a contaminant simulation study be carried out for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative project as it was described in the Supervising Scientist’s report to the World Heritage Committee of April 1999. Similarly, it recommended that the risk assessment for this project should be extended to 40, 50, and 60 years. Members of the Committee should note that, while ERA has not yet submitted its Amended Proposal for the Jabiluka project, a proposal that is required under the conditions of the approval given by the Government, the company has advised me of a number of measures that it intends to introduce in its final design that will give rise to an even greater level of environmental protection. Thus, the risks associated with the project in its final design will be even smaller than those described in my previous report to the Committee. In these circumstances, it is the Government’s view that any further detailed analysis of the project described in my previous report would be redundant. It would also consume resources that would be better directed at ongoing research and monitoring of the Ranger mine and to the development of the monitoring program for Jabiluka recommended by the ISP. Nevertheless, the Government has given its commitment to the Committee that the contaminant simulation study and the extension of the time scale for the risk assessment recommended by the ISP will be undertaken for the Amended Proposal for Jabiluka when it is submitted by ERA. As Professor Wilkinson has indicated to you, both the ISP and the IUCN now accept the merit of the Government’s approach to these recommendations and have agreed that further analysis of the approved project is not justified. Mr Chairman, the remit of the ISP was to assess the reports of the Supervising Scientist to the World Heritage Committee on Jabiluka of April 1999 and June 1999. However, several other issues that had been brought to its attention were considered by the ISP in its report because the ISP considered them relevant to Jabiluka. These

included the leak of tailings water at the Ranger mine during the 1999 – 2000 wet season. I am pleased to report that the ISP fully supported the principal conclusion of my report to the Australian government on the Ranger tailings water leak. That is, the leak had a negligible impact on people and the environment and the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park were not affected. The ISP also gave its full support to the recommendations made in my report, all of which have been accepted by the Australian Government. In summary, Mr Chairman, the Australian Government welcomes the final report of the ISP. It has given its commitment to taking measures to ensure that the intent of all of the recommendations made by the ISP is achieved. Following discussions over the past few days, the ISP, the IUCN and Australia believe that the Committee could now support a conclusion that the currently approved proposal for the mine and mill at Jabiluka does not threaten the health of people or the biological and ecological systems of Kakadu National Park that the 1998 Mission believed to be at risk.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

143

ANNEX XIV

Letter from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia

28 November 2000 Francesco Bandarin Director, World Heritage Centre c/- Cairns Convention Centre QUEENSLAND Dear Mr Bandarin, It is with great regret that I write to inform you that discussions during the 24th Session of the World Heritage Committee between the Mirrar and the Australian Government in relation to a new process (as outlined in last week's Bureau decision) regarding cultural heritage protection have broken down. We have proposed the assistance of the World Heritage Committee in the preparation of terms of reference and development of a new process to consider the protection of Kakadu's living cultural heritage. We remain extremely concerned at the Australian Government's unwillingness to accept, in an advisory or observatory capacity, the assistance of the World Heritage Committee, in spite of the Government's admission that an impasse has been reached. We submit our suggested text to the Secretariat and recommend it be considered during deliberations on Kakadu at the Committee this week. Additionally, I wish to raise a matter that has further deteriorated any notion of trust between the Australian Government and the Mirrar delegation. The Australian Government representatives to this forum have misrepresented, improperly and inaccurately, the content of our discussions with the Government to members of States Parties. These representatives have suggested that the discussion focussed on issues related to financial resources rather than a constructive process that would result in the protection of Kakadu's cultural heritage. Such misinformation only undermines any opportunity of future constructive dialogue. In conclusion I stress that the Mirrar delegation has tirelessly pursued resolution with the Australian Government by constructive dialogue. Our suggestions have been routinely rejected. This process has now reached a point where the integrity of the Mirrar position is in danger of being undermined. We have, therefore, suspended all discussions but are willing to receive advice and direction from the World Heritage Committee to ensure Kakadu's living cultural heritage is protected. Yours truly, [signed] Yvonne Margarula Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner Chairperson Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation

• PH.: 08 8979 2200 • PO BOX 245 JABIRU NT 0886 • FAX: 08 8979 2299 e-mail: gundjehmi@mirrar.net Internet: www.mirrar.net

144

With reference to the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park the Committee,

1. Welcomes the fact that discussions are taking place between the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners.

2. Recalls that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee (i998) noted "severe ascertained and potential

dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka".

3. Considers that the Committee's previous decision (June 1999) regarding cultural mapping and the

preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be implemented at this stage and that a new approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.

4. Recalls that at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its

willingness to "participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park".

5. Requests that the Committee note that the State Party is prepared to consider a new process to address

any outstanding issues relating to the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party in consultation with Mirrar Traditional Owners and the World Heritage Committee.

6. Proposes a new process beginning with the preparation of terms of reference developed in agreement

with the Mirrar Traditional Owners, UNESCO and other interested States Parties. These terms of reference and a progress report on implementation shall be presented, if possible, to the Bureau at its 25th Session in 2001.

7. The review process is proposed to consider issues affecting the living cultural values of Kakadu

National Park including: -

• = the recommended application of the cultural heritage criterion (iii) and the World Heritage cultural landscape categories.

• = an examination of the feasibility of extending the boundary of Kakadu National Park and World Heritage Property to ensure increased protection of more of the catchment of the East Alligator River;

• = consultation and dialogue with all Traditional Owners and the Kakadu National Park Board of Management is required.

145

ANNEX XV

Recommendations of the Technical Workshop on World Heritage and Mining held at IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland), 21-23 September 2000

The WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND STATE PARTIES are invited to note these findings:

�� Mining and conservation specialists are encouraged to work together, taking into account the unique aspects of mining (e.g. mineral potential, deposits) and the unique values and conditions of World Heritage sites; each case needs to be carefully considered, taking account of the conditions and integrity under the World Heritage Convention

• = Early in the nomination process, relevant national and local government ministries and agencies, all affected stakeholders and independent third parties should be identified and an open, transparent and effective communication mechanism established, including conflict resolution mechanisms

• = An open and transparent multi-disciplinary/science-based approach should be adopted for determining boundaries for World Heritage sites - one that protects World Heritage values and takes into account ecological, cultural, and mineral and other economic values, as well as socio-economic factors

• = Tentative lists of potential World Heritage sites should be made public to all stakeholders to encourage input of views and information

• = An effective flow of information should be assured between the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICOMOS regarding mining-related activities and World Heritage sites prior to designation, in compiling state of conservation reports, and during/after emergency situations

• = Regarding the evaluation of new nominations, the Advisory Bodies should ask State Parties to confirm that all affected stakeholders, including the mining industry, have been consulted

• = Given that World Heritage and mining issues are often polarized, there is a need to protect the process of World Heritage nomination and the state of conservation evaluations

• = If a mine is operating near a World Heritage site, facilities should be designed, operated and closed in consideration of World Heritage values and should contribute to the conservation of those values

• = Education and awareness programs are required so that local communities understand the importance and the values of World Heritage sites and can benefit from the presence of such areas.

WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES should:

• = Clarify and communicate roles and responsibilities regarding World Heritage sites

• = Put monitoring programs in place, as well as emergency preparedness and response plans, all with effective indicators, to ensure that the integrity of World Heritage values is not threatened by mining, agricultural, tourism or other activities, and to deal with incidents

• = Endeavour to link protected areas planning with broader regional land use planning, so that protected areas are seen as an integral element of their region.

• = Increase awareness about mining and recognize that mining companies may be key stakeholders

• = Establish communication mechanisms with all affected stakeholders

• = Work with mining companies in order to integrate their environmental management and community development programs into the overall management objectives of World Heritage sites.

MINING INDUSTRY

The mining industry has the potential to make significant contributions as follows:

a) In respect of World Heritage Protection/

Conservation, it can:

• = Undertake assessments of unique biodiversity, increase scientific understanding of ecosystems, and contribute to the conservation of flora and fauna affected by exploration, extraction and processing activities

• = Support research to expand scientific knowledge and develop improved technologies to protect the environment, and promote the international transfer of technologies that mitigate adverse environmental effects

• = Assist in the development of eco-tourism • = Contribute to government capacity in World

Heritage management and support site management programmes

• = Contribute to the promotion of the World Heritage Convention and sites through building awareness.

146

b) In respect of Environmental Management and Protection, it can:

• = Encourage all those involved in the mining

industry to better understand ecosystem management and adopt these principles

• = Work with governments and other relevant parties in developing sound, economic and equitable environmental standards and clear decision-making procedures, based on reliable and predictable criteria

• = Comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations and, in jurisdictions where these are absent or inadequate, apply cost-effective technologies and management practices to ensure the protection of the environment and worker and community welfare

• = Conduct environmental assessments of exploration, infrastructure development, mining or processing activities, including secondary effects, and plan and conduct the design, development, operation, remediation and closure of any facility in a manner that optimizes the economic use of resources while reducing adverse environmental and community impacts to acceptable levels

• = Employ risk management strategies and best practices that take into account local cultures, and economic and environmental circumstances in the design, construction, operation and decommissioning, including the handling and disposal of hazardous materials and waste

• = Ensure that adequate financial resources or surety instruments are in place to meet the requirements of remediation and closure plans

• = Implement effective management systems, conduct regular reviews and act on the results

• = Develop, maintain and test emergency plans and response procedures in conjunction with the provider of emergency services, relevant authorities and local authorities to deal adequately with any emergency

• = At the initial phases of mining projects, develop closure concepts and/or plans that address environmental and community related issues as well as World Heritage values, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders

• = Encourage governments to establish communication mechanisms that will promote dialogue amongst local communities and other affected organizations, facilitate the provision of expert advice and serve in a regular planning and/or oversight capacity; and establish effective processes for conflict resolution.

c) In respect of Community Development, it can:

• = Assess the social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of proposed activities and engage with local communities and other affected organizations in the design of community development strategies, including such a strategy for mine closure

• = Contribute to, and participate in, the social, economic and institutional development of communities, and encourage the establishment of sustainable local and regional economic activities

• = In cooperation with international agencies, public interest groups and national governments, contribute to the development of local government capacity as well as to plans to address secondary impacts created by mining activity

• = Mitigate, to the greatest practical extent, adverse effects on communities by activities related to exploration, extraction and closure of mining and processing facilities

• = Provide adequate resources and build requisite capabilities so that employees at all levels are able to fulfill their environmental and community responsibilities

• = Develop relevant sustainable development monitoring indicators on a site by site basis

• = Respect the authority of national and regional governments, take into account their development objectives, and support the sharing of the economic benefits generated by operations.

Granting of Exploration Licenses Finally, in respect of granting of exploration licenses, the mining industry should work with stakeholders to create clarity by defining the decision-making process, roles and responsibilities. It is expected that the granting of permits would carry a reasonable assurance of the right to develop, subject to appropriate approval mechanisms based on a clear decision-making process set out in advance. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS The conclusion of the workshop was that a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining should be formed to carry forward the work in this important field. It is important that the World Heritage Committee should give its support to such a Group. The Group's membership should be drawn from various UN Agencies, the Advisory Bodies, ICME, and other interested parties. It could be co-chaired by IUCN and ICME. The Group should work closely with other consultative mechanisms such as MMSD and other initiatives. If established, the Group would be able assist the World Heritage Committee in this area, and in particular it could:

�� If invited, assist the Committee in any review of

criteria used for assessing potential World Heritage sites

�� Arrange for the case studies presented at this meeting and the recommendations arising from the discussions to be widely publicized, possibly in the form of a best practice guidelines volume

�� Explore the interest in preparing a guidance document on World Heritage and Mining

147

�� Plan a workshop and other activities on Mining and World Heritage at the World Parks Congress in 2002

�� Investigate the development of databases of existing and potential World Heritage sites and other protected areas, along with mineral occurrences and public domain exploration information. This may involve use of existing map databases of protected areas maintained by UNEP-WCMC

�� Increase awareness through all possible means of the issues raised by the interaction of World Heritage sites and mining, involving World Heritage Managers as appropriate

�� Investigate sources of funding for the Group's programme of work.

In addition to its collaboration with ICME on World Heritage and mining, IUCN should consider how best to establish linkages with the wider mining sector on a broad range of issues concerning sustainable development, working with appropriate established initiatives.

149

ANNEX XVI

" Communiqué addressed to UNESCO by the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs in the Arab World

concerning Israel's request to inscribe Palestinian sites in the World Heritage List

(12th Conference of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs in the Arab World Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 21-22 November 2000)

We, the ministers responsible for cultural affairs in the Arab World, meeting at our twelfth conference held in Riyadh, the capital of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 21 and 22 November, strongly condemn the hostile Israeli action consisting of a request to inscribe Palestinian heritage sites, the historic Arab cities of Jerusalem and Acre and also the Negev and other natural sites, as Israeli sites in the World Heritage List. Through this uncivilized action Israel is seeking to consecrate its fait accompli policy towards Palestinian land, flouting the 1954 Hague Convention and disavowing all international agreements and conventions, including the World Heritage Convention adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972.

Israel is also intentionally ignoring international resolutions, in particular United Nations General Assembly resolution 181(II) adopted in 1947 and Security Council resolution 242 (1967). Therefore, on these grounds, we, the ministers responsible for cultural affairs in the Arab world, call upon UNECO and its World Heritage Committee to reject in the strongest possible terms this Israeli request, which is contrary to resolutions under international law, consecrates the occupation, lays claim to manifestations of Arab culture, and seeks to obliterate Palestinian cultural identity. "

151

ANNEX XVII

Intervention by H.E. Ahmad Abdelrazek, Ambassador, Permanent Observer of Palestine to UNESCO,

on the ocassion of the Twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee, 27 November - 2 December 2000, Cairns, Australia

Monsieur le Président, Excellences, Mesdames, Messieurs, Tout d’abord, Monsieur le Président, je tiens à vous remercier de me donner la parole et je souhaite également remercier les membres du Comité d’avoir permis à la Mission d’Observation de la Palestine de participer, en tant qu’observateur, aux travaux de cette vingt-quatrième session du Comité du patrimoine mondial. Je souhaiterais exprimer la position de Palestine sur l’inscription d’un site situé à ALQUDS/Jérusalem sur la Liste indicative présentée par Israël. L’article 3 de la Convention précise « qu’il appartient à chaque Etat Partie à la présente Convention d’identifier et de délimiter les différents biens situés sur son TERRITOIRE » Si l’Etat d’Israël revendique la souveraineté sur JERUSALEM-EST et même sur JERUSALEM- OUEST, il ne peut récuser les revendications de souveraineté ou de juridictions de l’autre partie Palestinienne au différend sur JERUSALEM. L’Etat d’Israël, au regard des Nations Unies et du Droit International n’a pas de souveraineté reconnue sur JERUSALEM. Juridiquement, l’Etat d’Israël ne peut considérer que les biens situés à JERUSALEM soient des biens situés sur son territoire.

Au regard de la Convention, l’Etat d’Israël ne peut présenter une demande d’inscription des biens situés à JERUSALE M , qui ne fait pas partie juridiquement du territoire sur lequel Israël a la souveraineté. Si en revanche, Israël respecte les dispositions du Droit International et se considère comme une PUISSANCE D’OCCUPATION exerçant sa juridiction sur Jérusalem, il doit dans ce cas, appliquer les dispositions de la CONVENTION DE LA HAYE (Convention de 1954) et, en particulier, l’article 5 sur l’occupation d’un territoire et les modalités de protection du patrimoine culturel dans ce territoire occupé. Si son objectif est la protection des biens culturels situés à Jérusalem, Israël doit reconnaître que Jérusalem est un territoire occupé et qu’il propose la protection de biens situés sur ce territoire occupé, sous réserve de respecter le droit international. Dans le cas actuel, nous demandons au Comité de ne pas retenir la demande d’inscription de ce site, situé à Jérusalem, sur la Liste, en attendant que les questions politiques et juridiques concernant la ville soient réglées par les Nations Unies. Nous nous gardons le droit de soulever des questions sur d’autres points sur la liste ultérieurement.

153

ANNEX XVIII

Intervention by H.E. Aryé Gabay, Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Israel to UNESCO on the occasion of the Twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee

27 November - 2 December 2000, Cairns, Australia

Mr Chairperson, May I first of all congratulate you upon your election to the head of this honourable forum and wish you every success. So as not to disturb the atmosphere of this forum

and contribute to its politisation, let me, Mr Chairperson, make a complete abstraction of all disagreeable political references concerning my country, among others, and reference to occupying forces in Jerusalem, the city of our roots, our Biblical and cultural heritage, place of worship and our national entity.

I regret to have to say that the Committee has made a serious error in applying Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure, namely to suspend Rule 7, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, which define the conditions for invitation of observers and representatives of NGOs and professional institutions. In doing so, the Committee has not only gone beyond the directives of the Rules of Procedure but it has also failed in the spirit of the Convention which, wishes to avoid, to the extent possible, the trap of politicalisation in this forum. Upon receipt of the request for the application of Rule 38, without prior warning, for a question that is not on the agenda, it was difficult for members of the Committee to make any comment, and I can easily understand this. In this way, you have granted the observer status to a political entity whose intention is certainly not to contribute towards the discussions at a professional level. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that a transgression has been made in respect of my country. Just twenty years ago, Israel, as a State, was refused observer status and the right of response by this same Committee, to allow Jordan to inscribe Jerusalem on the World Heritage List, despite the fact that this city was not located in its territory nor under its jurisdiction or sovereignty. In one go, Article 11.3 of the Convention and Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure were transgressed. Naturally, the Committee involved Rule 38 for suspension of its application! The irony of the situation is that this happened twenty years, here...in Australia.

Would it not be logical to say that the Committee acts according to political motivations, that there are two rules, two measures or otherwise that, quite simply, the Committee is used for political means by a certain group of countries. There is not a lack of forums where Jerusalem can be discussed. The problem of Jerusalem, like the Middle East, is discussed by a dozen international organizations, and what is even more absurd, it is also discussed within an organization dealing with education culture and science and this, for thirty years, twice a year. I advise you, Mr Chairperson, to ask, privately, and "off the record" the opinion of the members of UNESCO of the logic and utility of these debates. You will be enlightened and perhaps you will see an example not to be followed. Let the specialised organizations deal with the problem of Jerusalem and keep us at a distance from that. The Convention is not a body that judges the sovereignty of States and their sites and, in this respect Article 11.3 is clear and without ambiguity:

"The inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires the consent of the State concerned. The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute."

In other words, the Convention, in inscribing this site did not recognise in any way the sovereignty of my country and, consequently, the demands of the Palestinians are not affected in the least. But, even more absurd, Mr Chairperson, is the following:

1. Israel wishes to inscribe on the World Heritage List MONT ZION that is situated in an UNCONTESTED PART of Jerusalem since 1948. One only has to look at the map of Jerusalem, edited and published by the UNO to realize this.

2. Furthermore, it concerns an extension to the

Old City of Jerusalem which, as I have already told you, was already inscribed on the World Heritage List, by Jordan, twenty years ago here in Australia.

154

3. The inscription of this site shall only be discussed in a year's time, so why all this fuss and why transgress the rules and procedures?

The Convention concerning the protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage is itself an intellectual site that requires protection. Do not allow political contamination, as one day we may have to inscribe this forum on the List of World Heritage in Danger. I can assure you, Mr Chairperson, that Israel will be among the first to welcome the adhesion of the Palestinians to this forum, as soon as they accede to the status of a State, in the framework of the peace process. In this respect, I should mention that our Tentative List already includes regional cooperation projects with the Palestinians and Jordanians, and I hope wholeheartedly that the day for this cooperation is not far off.

For the moment, let us have the courage to proceed with rigour and integrity, the spirit and letter of our Convention and the rules and procedures that guide it. This can only improve our work. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

155

ANNEX XIX

World Heritage 24 COM Distribution limited WHC-2000/CONF.204/20

Cairns, 1 December 2000 Original : French/English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL

ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-fourth session Cairns, Australia

27 November – 2 December 2000

Item 16 of the Provisional Agenda: Provisional Agenda of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO Headquarters, June 2001) 1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative 2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable 3. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the twenty-fourth session

of the Committee 4. State of conservation of properties inscribed on List of World Heritage in Danger

and on the World Heritage List

4.1 State of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

4.2. Reports on state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World

Heritage List 5. Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural

properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List 6. Requests for international assistance

7. Provisional agenda of the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee

(December 2001)

8. Other business 9. Adoption of the report of the session 10. Closure of the session